Monteleone v. Bahama Cruise Line, Inc., 373

• Decision Date: 28 January 1988
• Docket Number: D,No. 373,373
• Citation: 838 F.2d 63
• Parties: Evelyn MONTELEONE, Charles Monteleone, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. BAHAMA CRUISE LINE, INC., Defendant-Appellant. ocket 87-6166.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

Page 63

838 F.2d 63

1988 A.M.C. 1146

Evelyn MONTELEONE, Charles Monteleone, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. BAHAMA CRUISE LINE, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 373, Docket 87-6166.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued Nov. 12, 1987.

Decided Jan. 28, 1988.

Howard W. Burns, Jr., New York City (Michael D. Martocci, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellant.

Alan C. Rassner, New York City (Rassner, Rassner & Olman, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellees.

Before TIMBERS, MESKILL and PRATT, Circuit Judges.

MESKILL, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiff-appellee Evelyn Monteleone fell down a flight of stairs aboard the VERACRUZ On appeal, BCL argues that it should not have been held liable, that in any event the award was excessive, and that the award if correct should have been discounted to present value. The Monteleones argue that the district court's findings are not clearly erroneous and should not be disturbed, and that the holding of liability was correct on the facts found. They also contend that prejudgment interest should be awarded if we hold that the damages are to be discounted.

                a cruise ship owned by defendant-appellant Bahama Cruise Line, Inc.  (BCL).  Mrs. Monteleone, who is left handed for all purposes except writing, broke the ring finger of her left hand and continues to suffer pain and limitation of motion in the hand.  She sued BCL in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking damages for her injury;  her husband also sued for the loss of his wife's services and society.  The district court, Duffy, J., exercising jurisdiction in admiralty, 46 U.S.C. Sec. 740 (1982), held that BCL had negligently caused Mrs. Monteleone's injuries.    Monteleone v. Bahama Cruise Line, Inc., 664 F.Supp. 744, 746 (S.D.N.Y.1987).  The court set Mrs. Monteleone's damages for medical expenses and pain and suffering at $97,168.95, and awarded her husband $500 for "minor inconveniences."    Id. at 746-47
                

For reasons that follow, we reverse the judgment on the liability question and remand to the district court with instructions to dismiss the complaint.

DISCUSSION

The evidence, often sharply contradictory, centered on one of several screws holding a brass strip or "nosing" to the edge of a step on the stairway where Mrs. Monteleone fell. There was testimony that the stairway was regularly inspected and cleaned, and that no defect was observed before the accident. Moreover, the ship's Staff Captain inspected the stairs immediately afterward and found no defect. The only witnesses who testified to seeing the protruding screw had returned to the stairway several hours after the accident. Nevertheless, the district court credited testimony that the screw did in fact protrude and accepted Mrs. Monteleone's theory that she tripped over it. The court further held that "allowing [the] screw to protrude ... was a negligent breach of [BCL]'s duty of care" that caused her injury. 664 F.Supp. at 746.

In concluding that BCL breached the duty it owed Mrs. Monteleone, the district court relied heavily on a chain of inferences involving inspections aboard the VERACRUZ. Testimony indicated that the ship's Chief Steward and carpenter inspected the entire ship, including the stairways, several times a day. It was disputed whether the carpenter kept a log or record of his inspections and repairs; although the Chief Steward testified that the carpenter kept a log, BCL denied that any such record existed and none was ever produced. The district judge found that this record, if produced, "would have shown the number of times the stairs had been repaired and the frequency of those repairs." Id. at 745. The judge further inferred that "the stairs were, in fact, frequently repaired," relying on the proposition that the inspection policy was inexplicable "unless the [nosings] had in the past become loose and the ship was aware that they were in need of constant repair." Id. ¹ In his specific findings relating to liability, he more narrowly stated that "the staircase had needed repairs in the past in order to keep it in a safe condition." Id. at 746. He made no express finding that BCL had actual or constructive notice of the screw's protrusion.

Disposition of this appeal turns on the duty of care with which a shipowner is chargeable. Although some older cases called for a higher degree of care aboard ship, it is now clear in this Circuit that the appropriate standard is one of reasonable In addition, a shipowner is responsible for defective conditions aboard ship only when it has actual or constructive notice of them. See Rainey, 709 F.2d at 172; Demgard, 94 F.Supp. at 311; Dann v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 45 F.Supp. 225, 226 (E.D.N.Y.1942). This principle parallels treatment of landowners' liability for dangerous conditions, for which actual or constructive notice of the condition is required, see Ferrara v. Sheraton McAlpin Corp., 311 F.2d 294, 296 (2d Cir.1962) (New York law) (Marshall, J.); Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836, 837-38, 501 N.Y.S.2d 646, 647, 492 N.E.2d 774 (1986) (mem.) (New York law); Idel v. Mitchell, 158 N.Y. 134, 139, 52 N.E. 740 (1899) (landowner not liable for injury caused by nail protruding from step absent actual or constructive notice; New York law). Cf. Rainey, 709 F.2d at 172 (Oakes, J., concurring) (shipowner's position "no different ... from that of a possessor of land" where shipboard hazard was like those encountered ashore); G. Gilmore & C. Black, supra, at 23 n. 77 (principles of shipowner's liability in negligence for injuries to passengers "differ little from those in use ashore"). The analogy to landowners' liability is especially apt where the hazard encountered is not unique to the maritime environment. Rainey, 709 F.2d at 172.

                care under the circumstances.    Rainey v. Paquet Cruises, Inc., 709 F.2d 169, 172 (2d Cir.1983).  "The extent to which the circumstances surrounding maritime travel are different from those encountered in daily life and involve more danger to the passenger, will determine how high a degree of care is reasonable in each case."    Id.  Consistent with these principles, a shipowner is not an insurer of its passengers' safety.    See Moore v. American Scantic Line, Inc., 121 F.2d 767, 768 (2d Cir.1941);  Demgard v. United States, 94 F.Supp. 309, 310 (S.D.N.Y.1950) (Kaufman, J.);    G. Gilmore & C. Black, The Law of Admiralty 23 n. 77 (2d ed. 1975).  There thus must be some failure to exercise due care before liability may be imposed
                

In this case, BCL's conduct is measured against a standard of ordinary reasonable care because the protruding screw, like the stool left in the middle of the dance floor in Rainey, is "a condition in no way peculiar to maritime travel," id. Under this standard, the district court erred as a matter of law in holding that merely allowing the screw to protrude constituted a...