Kiwia v. Bulkship Management ( 2022 )

Case: 21-30353 Document: 00516411170 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/28/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
July 28, 2022
No. 21–30353 Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Faustine Kiwia,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Bulkship Management, A.S.,
Defendant—Appellant,
Oslo Bulk Beta, A.S.,
Intervenor—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:20–CV–96
Before Jones, Stewart, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Faustine Kiwia lost three fingers while working as a stevedore aboard
the M/V Oslo Bulk 9. Kiwia sued the vessel and two related entities alleging
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-30353 Document: 00516411170 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/28/2022
No. 21–30353
negligence under § 5(b) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’
Compensation Act (“LHWCA”), 33 U.S.C. § 901 et seq. After a bench trial,
the district court concluded that the Oslo Bulk 9 crew negligently caused
Kiwia’s injuries and awarded Kiwia $1,076,873 in damages. Finding no clear
error, we AFFIRM.
I.
Coastal Cargo, a stevedoring company, hired Kiwia to work as a
longshoreman on February 19, 2019. The same day, Coastal Cargo provided
Kiwia with some basic training on his role, the types of cargo he would work
with, and safety. Kiwia started working the next day. Ten days later, Coastal
Cargo put Kiwia on the longshoremen gang responsible for offloading the
Oslo Bulk 9, a handysize bulk carrier hauling bauxite ore.
After a brief gangway safety meeting, Kiwia and the other
longshoremen started offloading the bauxite onto a barge rafted alongside the
Oslo Bulk 9. Kiwia spent the morning assisting with opening and closing the
barge’s hatches as the crane operator dumped bauxite ore into the barge’s
holds. During the early afternoon, the longshoremen gang twice stopped
work and closed the barge’s hatches covers due to rain. After closing the
barge’s hatch covers the second time, the gang broke for lunch.
Returning back to the dock for lunch required the longshoremen to
climb onto the Oslo Bulk 9 using a Jacob’s ladder and walk across the deck
back to the gangway. Coastal Cargo personnel hung the Jacob’s ladder from
the Oslo Bulk 9’s outer deck railing near the vessel’s No. 2 cargo hold. After
reaching the last rung of the Jacob’s ladder, the longshoreman would have to
climb over the outside deck railing. Just beyond that railing lay the vessel’s
cargo hold opening. Each cargo hold opening was surrounded by a vertical
bulkhead designed to keep water out, called a hatch coaming. On the Oslo
Bulk 9, the cargo holds were covered by folding hatch covers. Folding hatch
2
Case: 21-30353 Document: 00516411170 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/28/2022
No. 21–30353
covers consist of four large panels, driven by hydraulic rams, that fold up into
two inverted “V”s on either side of the hold. The panels have steel wheels
that roll along a raised rail on top of the hatch coaming.
Kiwia was the third or fourth longshoreman to ascend the Jacob’s
ladder. Just after Kiwia scaled the deck railing, with both feet on the inboard
side of the deck, he placed his right hand on top of the hatch coaming directly
in the path of where the folding hatch covers’ steel wheels run. Kiwia
planned to disembark the ship by walking aft and crossing the ship to the
gangway on the starboard side, but, just as he reached the deck, his supervisor
called him from the bow. Kiwia turned around in response with his hand still
on top of the hatch coaming for balance.
Unbeknownst to Kiwia, an Oslo Bulk 9 crewmember at the No. 2 hatch
cover operating panel (located on the starboard side of the hatch) had started
closing the cover some time before Kiwia reached the deck. The Oslo Bulk 9
crew failed to warn the supervisor of the Coastal Cargo gang that they would
be closing the hatch or perform a walkaround of the hatch before closing it.
Kiwia testified that he did not notice the hatch cover closing himself because
it moved slowly and was “imperceptibly quiet.” Moreover, at the time,
several stevedores were still working in the hold, which made closing the
hatch unusual.
Moments after Kiwia placed his hand on top of the hatch coaming, the
hatch cover’s steel wheels trapped his gloved hand and severed his middle
three fingers. Roy Hughes, Jr., who was working as the Coastal Cargo gang’s
flagman and standing about ten feet away from Kiwia, yelled out to the Oslo
Bulk 9 crewmember operating the hatch cover to stop the cover. Kiwia then
freed what was left of his hand. At some point during this sequence of events,
the hatch cover crushed Hughes’s work bag as well.
3
Case: 21-30353 Document: 00516411170 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/28/2022
No. 21–30353
Another Coastal Cargo employee rushed Kiwia to the hospital.
Although Kiwia brought his severed index finger to the hospital, the nature
of the injury prevented doctors from reattaching it. Doctors closed Kiwia’s
wounds after slightly shortening the bones in two of his severed fingers and
then discharged him from the hospital. A few months later, Kiwia returned
to the hospital with pain in one of his amputated fingers, which doctors
diagnosed as symptomatic neuroma. Doctors performed surgery on the
finger to address the symptomatic neuroma. The surgery was moderately
successful in reducing the nerve–related pain.
Kiwia sued the Oslo Bulk 9 and its owners for negligence under § 5(b)
of the LHWCA. Under § 5(b), a stevedore “may seek damages in a third–
party negligence action against the owner of vessel on which he was
injured . . . .” Howlett v. Birkdale Shipping Co., 512 U.S. 92, 96 (1994). To
prevail on a § 5(b) negligence claim, the plaintiff must prove duty, breach,
causation, and damages. 1 Thomas J. Schoenbaum, Admiralty &
Maritime Law § 7:14, at 703 (6th ed. 2020). In Scindia Steam Navigation
Co. v. De los Santos, 451 U.S. 156 (1981), the Supreme Court clarified that a
vessel owner owes stevedores three general duties. Relevant here, a vessel
owner must exercise due care to the extent that it “actively involves itself in
the cargo operations” and to “avoid exposing longshoremen to harm from
hazards they may encounter in areas, or from equipment, under the active
control of the vessel during the stevedoring operation.” Scindia, 451 U.S. at
167. This is known as the active control duty.
After a two–day bench trial, the district court concluded that the Oslo
Bulk 9 was negligent and awarded Kiwia $1,076,873 in damages. The district
court premised its negligence finding on a breach of the active control duty.
Based on contested evidence of industry custom, the district court concluded
that reasonable care required the Olso Bulk 9 crew to survey the vicinity of
the hatch and verbally warn the Coastal Cargo gang’s supervisor before
4
Case: 21-30353 Document: 00516411170 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/28/2022
No. 21–30353
closing the hatch cover. The Oslo Bulk 9 crew took neither measure and, as
a result, the court found the defendants 50% at fault for Kiwia’s injuries. 1
Further, the district court attributed no fault to Kiwia. The court awarded
Kiwia $81,000 in past medical expenses, $46,000 in past lost wages, and
$950,000 in general damages. The vessel defendants timely appealed.
II.
Faced with an appeal from a final judgment in a bench trial, this court
reviews legal issues de novo and findings of fact for clear error. Rivera v.
Kirby Offshore Marine, L.L.C., 983 F.3d 811, 816 (5th Cir. 2020). Questions
concerning breach, causation, apportionment of fault, and the amount of
damages are treated as factual issues subject to clear error review. Deperrodil
v. Bozovic Marine, Inc., 842 F.3d 352, 356, 358, 361 (5th Cir. 2016). “To
reverse for clear error, this court must have ‘a definite and firm conviction
that a mistake has been committed.’” Delahoussaye v. Performance Energy
Servs., L.L.C., 734 F.3d 389, 392 (5th Cir. 2013) (quoting Canal Barge Co. Inc.
v. Torco Oil Co., 220 F.3d 370, 375 (5th Cir. 2000)). This court cannot
substitute our view of the record for that of the district court absent clear
error, even though we might have a different view of the record.
III.
The vessel defendants contend that the district court erred by:
(1) concluding that its crew breached the active control duty; (2) holding that
the crew’s alleged failure to notify the Coastal Cargo supervisor that the
hatch cover would be closed or to maintain situational awareness while
1
The district attributed the other 50% of fault to Coastal Cargo. But that holding
is of little practical import because (1) liability is joint and several and (2) Coastal Cargo is
Kiwia’s employer (and is therefore statutorily immune under the LHWCA). See Edmonds
v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 443 U.S. 256, 260–63 (1979).
5
Case: 21-30353 Document: 00516411170 Page: 6 Date Filed: 07/28/2022
No. 21–30353
closing the hatch caused Kiwia’s injury; (3) attributing no fault to Kiwia or
by attributing less than 100% fault to Coastal Cargo; and (4) awarding
excessive damages. We address each argument in turn.
First, breach. The district court found that “[b]efore closing the
hatch cover, the exercise of reasonable care mandated that the relevant Oslo
Bulk crewmember [(1)] warn the Coastal Cargo supervisor or foreman and
[(2)] survey the vicinity of the hatch coaming to ensure that no individuals or
objects were in the path of the closing cover.” The vessel’s crew failed on
both accounts, the district court concluded, and, as a result, breached the
active control duty. The defendants dispute that the vessel had a duty in
these circumstances and that there was a breach. Assessing these issues, the
court heard competing testimony of experts, a former supervisor of Coastal
Cargo, Kiwia himself, and Hughes, the fellow longshoreman who witnessed
Kiwia’s injury and testified to facts relevant to whether and how
longshoremen are or ought to be warned about vessel hatch closings.
Defendants devote a significant portion of their brief to challenging
the veracity and accuracy of Hughes’s testimony, but the court found him
“highly credible.” To the extent that the defendants’ argument turns on
Hughes’s credibility, it is without merit. See Anderson v. City of Bessemer City,
470 U.S. 564, 575 (1985) (“[W]hen a trial judge’s finding is based on his
decision to credit the testimony of one of two or more witnesses . . . , that
finding, if not internally inconsistent, can virtually never be clear error.”).
Any inconsistencies in Hughes’s testimony were not critical enough to
require the district court to disregard it.
Otherwise, while the evidence noted by defendants certainly
contradicts that in favor of finding a duty and breach by the vessel crew, the
trial court exercised its duty to weigh the conflicting evidence. We cannot
find clear error on this record.
6
Case: 21-30353 Document: 00516411170 Page: 7 Date Filed: 07/28/2022
No. 21–30353
Second, causation. In a § 5(b) lawsuit, an injured plaintiff must prove
that the defendant’s breach of a Scindia duty was a “substantial factor” in
causing the injury. See Moore v. M/V Angela, 353 F.3d 376, 388 (5th Cir.
2003) (quoting Donaghey v. ODECO, 974 F.2d 646, 649 (5th Cir. 1992)).
Here, the district court found that (1) “[d]espite his inexperience, Kiwia
would have responded appropriately to a warning to keep away from the
hatch coaming” and (2) the hatch cover operator’s lack of situational
awareness and failure to survey the vicinity contributed to Kiwia’s injuries.
The defendants contend that these findings amount to clear error because no
evidence indicates that, had the crew exercised reasonable care, Kiwia
himself would have received a warning. And given Kiwia’s patent
inexperience and lack of appropriate training, defendants stress, it is absurd
to conclude that he would have understood or heeded a warning about the
hatch cover closing. Further, they posit, it is unclear how surveying the
vicinity around the hatch cover before closing it could have prevented Kiwia’s
injury while the cover was closing. The facts as to causation raise a close
question, but we do not have a definite and firm conviction that the district
court mistakenly found that the defendants’ breach was a substantial factor
in causing Kiwia’s injuries.
Third, apportionment. The “longshoreman’s award in a [§ 5(b)] suit
against a negligent shipowner [should] be reduced by that portion of the
damages assignable to the longshoreman’s own negligence . . . .” Edmonds v.
Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 443 U.S. 256, 259–60 (1979) (citations
omitted). “[W]hen measuring the longshore worker’s comparative fault, the
worker’s negligence is adjudged from the standpoint of a reasonable
longshore worker under the circumstances.” Davis v. Portline Transportes
Maritime Internacional, 16 F.3d 532, 545 (3d Cir. 1994). The district court
attributed 50% fault to the Oslo Bulk 9 for failing to exercise reasonable care,
50% fault to Coastal Cargo for failing to train Kiwia on the dangers posed by
7
Case: 21-30353 Document: 00516411170 Page: 8 Date Filed: 07/28/2022
No. 21–30353
hatch coamings, and no fault to Kiwia. “Given Kiwia’s lack of knowledge on
the dangers of the hatch coaming,” the district court reasoned, he “acted
reasonably in placing his hand on the hatch coaming to climb down from the
ladder as he simply copied the more experienced longshoremen before him.”
The district court likewise noted that “Kiwia was an inexperienced
longshoreman at the time of his injury” but that “any lack of knowledge or
unfamiliarity he had with the operations [of a vessel] may be attributed to his
employer for failing to advise [him] of those general dangers.” The
defendants suggest that the district court erroneously absolved Kiwia of any
contributory negligence by measuring his negligence against an artificially
low standard of care. But that argument is unsupported by the record. That
Kiwia was inexperienced does not mean he lacked the minimum
qualifications ordinarily possessed by longshore workers. Nor does the
district court’s finding that Coastal Cargo should have trained Kiwia on the
pinch hazards posed by hatch covers require a finding that Kiwia was himself
negligent.
Finally, damages. A damages award is excessive “only if it is greater
than the maximum amount the trier of fact could properly have awarded.”
Moore, 353 F.3d at 384 (citing Sosa v. M/V Lago Izabal, 736 F.2d 1028, 1035
(5th Cir. 1984)). An award of damages is not excessive if it is less than 133%
of the “highest inflation–adjusted recovery in an analogous, published
decision.” Longoria v. Hunter Express, Ltd., 932 F.3d 360, 365 (5th Cir.
2019); id. at 365 n.3. Here, the district court awarded Kiwia $950,000 in
general damages after considering the amount of general damages awarded
for similar injuries in Robertson v. Superior PMI, Inc., 600 F. Supp. 790 (W.D.
La. 1985), aff’d as modified, 791 F.2d 402 (5th Cir. 1986), and adjusted for
inflation. The defendants contend that was error because the plaintiff in
Robertson suffered far more than Kiwia. Specifically, they point out that,
among other things, Robertson lost four fingers instead of Kiwia’s three, and
8
Case: 21-30353 Document: 00516411170 Page: 9 Date Filed: 07/28/2022
No. 21–30353
Kiwia returned to work much sooner than Robertson. Robertson, 600 F.
Supp. at 794, 796. Notwithstanding those differences, the district court’s
reliance on Robertson does not amount to clear error. Robertson and Kiwia
suffered relatively similar injuries. Moreover, the defendants did not identify
any other factually analogous case that shows the damages award is excessive.
AFFIRMED.
9