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

> Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · March 28, 1994 · 16 F.3d 532

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9486412

## Case

- **Full name:** Richard E. DAVIS; Priscilla Davis, His Wife, Appellants, v. PORTLINE TRANSPORTES MARITIME INTERNACIONAL
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- **Decided:** March 28, 1994
- **Citations:** 16 F.3d 532
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Becker, Stapleton, Restani, Trade
- **Cited by:** 91 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled implicitly by Howlett v. Birkdale Shipping Co., S.A., 512 U.S. 92 (1994).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9486412

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 w…
- 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’”
- rejecting affidavit in slip and fall case where affiant testified that the defendant knew the deck of its ship would be slippery because the affiant “did not demonstrate in his affidavit that he was competent to aver to the fact of [defendant’s] knowledge, as he provided no su…

## Opinion text

SUR PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING WITH SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING IN BANC
March 28, 1994
The petition for rehearing filed by Appel-lee having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this Court and to all the other available circuit judges in active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service not having voted for rehearing by the court in banc, the petition for rehearing is DENIED.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9486412. Public record. Not legal advice.