Vessel Owner Did Not Breach “Turnover Duty” Where Injury-Causing Repairs Were Within General Scope Of Shipyard Inspection And Repair

A harbor worker brought claims against a vessel owner under the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act (“LHWCA”) for injuries he sustained when one of the vessel’s hatch covers blew off during an air pressure test of airtight integrity.  The vessel owner filed for summary judgment, arguing that the undisputed facts showed that the vessel owner did not breach any applicable duty, specifically its “turnover duty,” which relates to the condition of the ship upon the commencement of shipyard operations and requires shipowners to exercise ordinary care so that the ship and equipment are in such condition that the shipyard can use reasonable care to safely perform its operations.

All parties acknowledged Fifth Circuit precedent that “subtly alter[s]” the vessel owner’s turnover duty in the context of repair operations.  Specifically, vessel owners have no duty to turn over a hazard-free vessel when it comes to repairs; rather, when a condition of the ship that requires repair or inspection injures the person hired to repair or inspect that condition, the vessel owner is generally not liable.  The plaintiff and his workers’ compensation insurance company nonetheless argued that because the vessel was explicitly turned over only for an inspection and possible repair of a wear plate on the stern, the injury-causing work performed on the hatches was not covered by the repair exception to the turnover duty.  The vessel owner argued that because it turned over the vessel for repairs at the Coast Guard’s request, the Coast Guard required an air-pressure test as part of its inspection, and the repairs to the pressurized hatch that caused the injuries were being made as a result of the air pressure test, the injury-causing work was part of the job the shipyard was hired to perform, and therefore could not be liable as a vessel owner because it turned over the vessel in a condition where an experienced shipyard would have been able to carry out the repairs to the hatch in a safe manner.  The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana sided with the vessel owner and found that even though the work being done on the hatches was not explicitly a part of the original scope of repairs, it was the result of subsequent inspections and testing directly related to the Coast Guard’s inspection of the stern and the related airtight integrity of the vessel.  The work that caused the injuries, therefore, was within the scope of overall repairs, and the vessel owner did not breach its turnover duty.