holding that dangerous condition was not just that scaffold lacked guardrail at some point during stevedoring operations, but that it had no guardrail while employees were using it as a work platform
How later courts described this case
- holding that dangerous condition was not just that scaffold lacked guardrail at some point during stevedoring operations, but that it had no guardrail while employees were using it as a work platform
- holding that shipowner had no duty to intervene "even if it possessed the full measure of actual knowledge required by Helaire [v. Mobil Oil Co., 709 F.2d 1031 (5th Cir. 1983)]”
- declining to adopt an "across-the-board rule that the involvement of a dangerous condition of the ship itself, its gear, or equipment is in all circumstances per se either necessary or sufficient to impose a duty on a shipowner”
- sustaining summary judgment that shipowner was not liable for harm caused by defective scaffolding because shipowner had no duty to intervene
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Clay v. Ensco Offshore Co., 146 F. Supp. 3d 808 (2015)
Id. at 210, This is distinguishable from the present matter.
Distinguished by Hunter v. Intreprinderea de Explore Flott Maritime NAVROM, 690 F. Supp. 517 (1988)
Although Futo is distinguishable from the assumed facts herein in that Mrs. Futo failed to prove that Lykes knew of the
The opinion
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Appellant moves for rehearing, calling attention to certain testimony, not discussed in our original opinion, which appellant claims demonstrates the existence of a genuine fact issue respecting whether Lykes actually knew Dixie employees were working on this scaffolding, without a safety belt or the like, when it lacked a guardrail. It is not necessary to address this contention, however, for, as plainly stated in our original opinion, under the circumstances here Lykes would have no liability even if it had such actual knowledge. The petition for rehearing is accordingly DENIED.