QCR Winter 2021: M/V HONEY

Commercial diver working on a recreational vessel could not take advantage of LHWCA exception where plaintiffs failed to demonstrate State Workers’ Compensation Cover.
Facts
Luis Gorgonio Ixba, a commercial diver, was tragically killed when a crewmember onboard the M/V HONEY activated a bow thruster of a 164 foot yacht while Mr. Ixba was cleaning the vessel’s hull. Mr. Ixba’s Estate filed a wrongful death lawsuit in Florida state court alleging negligence of vessel owner and the crew of the M/V HONEY, but a subsequent Limitation of Liability Action was filed by the vessel owner and the case was brought into the Southern District of Florida.
The vessel owner asserted that the diver was covered under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA) 33 U.S.C § 905(b), and therefore the vessel’s duties were controlled by Scindia Steam Navigation Co. v. De Los Santos, 451 U.S. 156 (1981) (1). The lower court agreed and found that the vessel owner owed no duty to the diver because “[n]ot only did the diver fail to notify anyone on the vessel of his presence or work operations, he submerged himself under the water—he became invisible to the crew.”
Judgment
On appeal before the Eleventh Circuit, the plaintiffs argued that the decedent-diver was not covered under the LHWCA because there is an exception for workers engaged in repairing a recreational vessel pursuant to section 902(3)(f). The plaintiffs were attempting to have the general maritime law of reasonable care apply instead of the Scindia duties.
In its defense, the vessel owner maintained that the aforementioned exception was only applicable if the worker was covered under a state’s workers’ compensation law. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision noting that there was no evidence that the claimant was covered by a state workers’ compensation law.
Comments
This case shows the limits to the aforementioned exception for workers engaged in repairing a recreational vessel, under the LHWCA. More broadly however, the case shows the value in a vessel owner successfully asserting that a claimant falls under 905(b) thereby narrowing the duties that the vessel owes to claimants.
Footnotes
(1) There is the turnover duty whereby a vessel owner “owes a duty to exercise ordinary care under the circumstances to turn over the ship and its equipment in such condition that an expert stevedore can carry on stevedoring operations with reasonable safety.” The vessel owner must also warn of latent or hidden dangers known to the vessel owner. Then there is the active control duty, whereby the vessel owner must exercise reasonable care in the areas of the ship under the active control of the vessel. Lastly, there is the duty to intervene, which is said to concern “the vessel owner’s obligation with regard to cargo operations in areas under the principal control of the stevedore.” Howlett v. Birkdale Shipping Co., 512 U.S. 92 (1994)
You may also be interested in:
この記事では、米国の連邦沿岸/港湾労働者災害補償法(LHWCA)第905条(b)に基づくクレームについての基礎情報の解説と、負傷した港湾労働者等が船舶に対して起こした訴訟について、過去の判例とともに重要な課題に焦点を当てています。
Event:人的要因による事故防止トレーニング開催
2023/01/25
UKクラブは、2023年1月23日~25日に人的要因による事故防止トレーニングをロンドンで開催します。講師は航空業界の訓練を専門とするCAEのトレーナが行います。メンバーの参加料は無料ですが、交通費等は自己負担となりますのでご了承ください。また、今回参加はできないがCAEトレーニングに興味はあるというメンバーの皆様は、当クラブへご連絡ください。
Crew Health Advice: ハンセン病
2023/01/26
ある乗組員は皮膚炎の疑いで下船し、その1ヶ月後ハンセン病と診断されました。乗組員はこの診断後保菌者として扱われ、治療と経過観察についての指導を受けました。診断および治療についての推奨事項等についてまとめました。
The US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's findings that the evidence did not adequately support an allegation of breach by the Defendant vessel owners of their Scindia duties.