Graham v. Bahia Sternwheelers Inc.

147 F. App'x 691
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided September 22, 2005·No. No. 03-56926·Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

The district court’s conclusion that Bahia, which owned the vessel on which William E. Graham was injured, did not owe Graham a duty of care under the Long-shore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act was not erroneous.

Because Graham was an employee of BH, rather than of Bahia; because BH had control over Graham’s work; and because Graham was “injured by a defective condition he was hired to correct;” the district court properly found that Bahia was not hable for Graham’s injury. See Peters v. Titan Navigation Co., 857 F.2d 1342, 1344 (9th Cir.1988); see also Scindia Steam Navigation Co., Ltd. v. De Los Santos, 451 U.S. 156, 166-69, 175-76, 101 S.Ct. 1614, 68 L.Ed.2d 1 (1981) (describing the duties owed by a vessel owner).

AFFIRMED.

Footnotes

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Graham v. Bahia Sternwheelers Inc., 147 F. App'x 691 (9th Cir. 2005).

147 F. App'x 691 (Graham v. Bahia Sternwheelers Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Scindia Steam Navigation Co. v. De Los Santos
451 U.S. 156 (Supreme Court, 1981)
Peters v. Titan Navigation Co.
857 F.2d 1342 (Ninth Circuit, 1988)