Cruise Ship Law

CORNELIUS HILL; TRUDIE HASTINGS HILL, H/W, Appellants v. REEDEREI F. LAEISZ G.M.B.H., ROSTOCK; SCHIFFARHTSGESELLSCHAFT MS PRIWALL MBH & CO. KG

No. 04-4335
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
435 F.3d 404; 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 2317; 23 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1842
January 31, 2006, Filed

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff longshoreman appealed from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which found in favor of defendants, the ship's owner and the ship's operator (ship), on the longshoreman's negligence claim under the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act (LHWCA). The longshoreman asked the instant court to vacate the judgment of the district court and remand for a new trial.

OVERVIEW: The longshoreman was injured while unloading cargo in the hold of the ship. He and another longshoreman were loosening the steel "lashing rods" which hold the cargo containers in place. While the other longshoreman was attempting to loosen a rod, it sprung off its housing and flew through the air, hitting plaintiff longshoreman in the head, smashing his hard hat, knocking him unconscious and almost killing him. On appeal, the longshoreman contended that the jury instructions were an inaccurate statement of the turnover duty. The instant court found that the instruction in this case omitted a substantive element of the ship's duty, and based on the evidence presented at trial it could not conclude that it was highly probable that the omission did not affect the outcome. The longshoreman also argued that there was not sufficient evidence presented to support a finding of superseding cause, and that superseding cause was conceptually in tension with the remedial scheme set forth in the LHWCA. The instant court found that because there was no evidentiary basis for a superseding cause finding, the district court erred in giving a superseding cause instruction.

OUTCOME: The district court's order was vacated and the case was remanded for a new trial.