Richard E. Davis Priscilla Davis, His Wife v. Portline Transportes Maritime Internacional

How later courts described this case

• stating that under the turnover duty, “the vessel need not supervise or inspect the stevedoring operation to discover and correct dangerous conditions which develop within the cargo areas as a result of those operations” (citing Scindia, 451 U.S. at 168-69, 101 S.Ct. 1614)
• finding relevant crew members’ testimony that it was customary for the vessel, and not the stevedore, to remove slippery conditions from the deck in finding a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the active control duty
• finding a triable issue of fact on the active operations duty because the shipowner’s employees remained on board and performed maintenance on a ship’s deck where the longshoremen were working, including spraying the deck with water—in freezing weather—while the longshoremen worked
• holding that Rule 9011 “does not suffice [to support an award of 17 sanctions] because the victim did not make the requisite motion following compliance with the 18 mandatory ‘safe harbor’”

Written by the judges who cited it.