Renteria v. Grieg Star AS - Maritime Worker Negligence Appeal

United Sta tes Court of Appeals f or the Fifth Circuit ________ ____ No. 25 - 20131 ________ ____ Balvi na Rent eria, Plainti ff — Appella nt, versus Grieg Star AS; Grieg Mari time Group AS; Grieg Foundat ion, Defendant s —Appellees. ________ ____ ___ _____ _______ ___ Appea l fr om the United State s District C ourt for the Sout her n Distr ict of Texa s USDC N o. 4: 23 - CV - 2 025 ________ ____ ___ _____ _______ ___ Before Jones and Engelha rdt, Ci r cuit Judges, and Summerhays, Distr ict Judge. ∗ Robert R. Summerhay s, Dist rict Judge: Plaintiff B alvina Re nteria (“Ren teria”), an injured maritime worker, appeals f rom th e distri ct court’ s gran t of su mmar y judgmen t to de fend ant G rieg Star A S (“Gr ieg Star”) on her claim o f vesse l neglige nce. We AF- FIRM. ________ ____ ___ _____ _ ∗ United S tates D istric t Jud ge for the Wester n Distr ict of Lou isian a, sittin g by design ation. United S tates Court of A ppeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 6, 2026 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 25-20131 Document: 80-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/06/2026

No. 25 - 20131 2 I. On her thi rd day of unl oading carg o from the M/V St ar J uvent as, longshor e work er Balvina Ren teria, an employ ee of Coop er/Port s Ameri ca, steppe d on plastic sheeting cove ring a gap be tween stacked car go and fell te n feet to the s teel de ck of th e cargo h old. Grieg S tar was th e vess el’s “ tech nical manager.” 1 The cargo consis ted of ten - foot - tall rolls o f kraf t liner bo ard, which had b een loaded onto the v essel by l ongshoreme n in Italy. The rolls were stacke d in th e cargo ho ld, with airbag s in som e of the gaps b etween rolls. B lack plasti c netting or sheet ing wi th holes was placed around the edg es of the hold bet we en each lay er of car go, thereby c overing the outer p ortion of each lay er of car go. At th e time of the acciden t, the longs hore crew was remo ving the last layer of car go in Ho ld 6, an d Re nteria ’s assignment wa s to roll up th e plastic s hee ting. Rente ria step ped on the p lastic shee ting coverin g a gap betw een rolls and fe ll ten f eet. ________ ____ ___ _____ _ 1 Section 902 of the Longshore a nd Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (“LHWCA”) d efines the term “vessel” to includ e the “vessel’s owner, owner pro hac vice, agent, operator, charter or bare boat charterer, master, officer, or crew member.” 33 U.S.C. § 902(21). Grieg S tar co nceded in distric t cour t that a vess el’s tech nical mana ger is encomp assed in the def inition of “ves sel” s et forth in the Act. Case: 25-20131 Document: 80-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/06/2026

No. 25 - 20131 3 Photogra ph of H old 6 Rente ria rece ived her ins tructions from th e stevedor e a nd nev er commun icated with the vess el’s crew. The vessel ’s crew did not instruct or direct th e lon gshorem en regar ding cargo oper ations. Each day be fore beginning carg o operati ons, the v essel ’s m aster or c h ief o fficer met with the stev edor e super vis or for a morning safety me eting, the s teved ore ins pec ted the cargo hold, and the lo ngshorem en attende d a safety meeting wi t h the stev edor e for eman an d sa fety ma n. At th ese meet ings, Rent eri a wa s instructe d to w atch wh ere she stepp ed but was n ever specif ically instru cted not to w alk on th e black plas tic she eting. Case: 25-20131 Document: 80-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/06/2026

No. 25 - 20131 4 Rente ria filed s uit aga inst Grie g Star in Texas state court in May 2023, alleging ve ssel n egligen ce un der the LHWCA, 33 U.S.C. § 90 5(b). 2 G rie g Sta r remov ed the action to fed eral cou rt the following mo nth. Aft er discov ery, Gri eg Star moved for su mmary judg ment on all claims. The district c ourt gran ted sum mary ju dgment for G rieg Star. Rente ria timely appealed. II. “This co urt revie ws de n ovo a distric t court’ s grant o f summar y judgme nt, apply ing the sam e stand ard as the d istrict court. ” 3 Summary judgme nt is app ropriate “if the movan t shows th at there is no genuine dispute as to any material fa ct and the movan t is entitle d to j udgmen t as a matter o f law.” 4 A gen uine disp ute of material fa ct exists “ when the ev idenc e is such th at a reaso nable jury co uld retur n a verdict for the non - moving ________ ____ ___ _____ _ 2 This su bsection read s in p ertinent pa rt as follows: In the event of injury to a per son covered under t his chapter caused by the negligence of a vessel, then such person. . . may bri ng an action agains t such vess el as a third par ty in accor danc e with the prov isions of sec tion 93 3 of th is title, and th e emp loyer s hall not b e liable to the v esse l for su ch dam ages d irectly or in direc tly an d an y agre ements or wa rrantie s to the con t rary sh all be void. If such person was employed by the vessel to provid e stev edoring s ervices, no such action s hall be per mitted if the inj ury was caused by the n egligence of persons engaged in p roviding stevedoring servic es to th e vesse l.. . . The liab ility of the v ess el under th is subs ection shall not be based upon the warranty of seaworthiness or a breach thereof at the t ime the inj ury oc curred. T he rem edy provid ed in this subs ection sha ll be exclu sive of all oth er rem edies agains t the vess el except remed ies ava ilable un der th is chapte r. 33 U.S.C. § 905(b). 3 Johnson v. Cooper T. Smi th Stevedo ring Co., Inc., 74 F.4th 268, 272 (5th Cir. 20 23) (quotin g Austin v. Kroger Tex., L.P., 864 F.3 d 326, 328 (5 th Cir. 2017)). 4 F ED. R. C IV. P. 56(a). Case: 25-20131 Document: 80-1 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/06/2026

No. 25 - 20131 5 party. ” 5 All ev idenc e must be vie wed in the light mo st favorable to the nonmo ving party and all re asonable inferences are to b e drawn in that p arty ’ s favor. 6 III. Section 905(b) of t he LHW CA “ supplies th e relevan t tort - based duties ow ed by v essel owners t o long shore men. ” 7 The Suprem e Court in Scindi a Steam N av. C o., Lt d. v. De Los Sant o s outlined th ree narrow dutie s shipowner s ow e to lo ngshor emen: (1) the t urnover dut y, (2) the active control duty, and (3) the duty t o interv ene. 8 “The basic princ iple wh ich emerg es fr om Scind ia is that the p rimary r esponsib ility for th e safe ty o f the longshor eman r ests up on th e steved ore.” 9 Here, Ren teria appe als only the district court’s dismissal o f her claim based on allege d violations of th e turno ver and active con trol dutie s. 10 ________ ____ ___ _____ _ 5 Johnson, 74 F.4th a t 272 (q uoting A ustin, 864 F.3d a t 328). 6 Id. (qu oting Aust in, 864 F.3d at 328 - 29). 7 Manson Gulf, L.L.C. v. Mod ern Am. Recycling Serv., I nc., 878 F.3 d 130, 134 (5th Cir. 2017). 8 Scindia, 451 U.S. 15 6, 16 7 - 78 (1981); see al so Kir ksey v. To nghai Mar., 535 F.3d 3 88, 391 (5t h Cir. 2008). 9 Randol ph v. Laeisz, 896 F.2 d 964, 970 (5 th Cir. 1990). 10 Th e distr ict cou rt add itiona lly f ound tha t Rente ria had fa iled to p lead a vessel negligenc e cla im ba sed up on the duty to interv ene an d tha t her negligence per se c laim failed on the m erits. Ren teria d oes not ap peal th ose p ortions o f the dis trict c ourt’s rulin g and judgment. Case: 25-20131 Document: 80-1 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/06/2026

No. 25 - 20131 6 A. The tur nover d uty “r ela tes to t he condi tion of the s hip up on the commence ment of stevedoring opera tions.” 11 The tu rnove r duty p laces tw o oblig ations on the v essel owner: First, t he own er owes a duty t o ex erci se ord ina ry c are un der the circu mstance s to t urn ove r the ship and its equ ipment in such co ndition that an exper t steved ore can carry o n steved oring ope rations with reason able safe ty. Second, th e owner owes a duty to wa rn the stev edore of lat ent or hidd en dangers whi ch are k nown to the v essel owner or shoul d have been know n to it; howev er, the dut y to warn of hidden da ngers is narro w. It do es not include d angers which are eithe r: (1) open and obvious or (2) dangers a re asonabl y competent s tevedor e shou ld anticipate encoun tering. 12 The tu rnover duty to warn “may extend to ce rtain laten t hazards in the cargo stow,” because “a n impro per stow can cause inju ries to lo ngshoremen, and thus is amon g the ‘hazards on the ship’ to which the duty to warn attaches.” 13 Howev er, “ [b] eca use the ves s el does no t exerc ise t he s ame deg ree of oper ational co ntrol o ver, and does not have the same acce ss to, th e cargo stow ” as the steve dore, its duty to warn of latent de fects “is a narrow on e.” 14 The d uty attache s solely to latent h azards, which are “hazar ds tha t are not known to the steve dore and th at would be neither obviou s to nor an ticipated by a s killed steved ore in the co mpeten t perf ormance of its wo rk.” 15 Fu rther, ________ ____ ___ _____ _ 11 Howlett v. Bir kdale Shippin g Co., S.A., 512 U.S. 92, 98 (199 4). 12 Ki rk sey, 535 F.3d at 392 (cita tions om itted). 13 Howlett, 512 U.S. at 9 9 (cita tions omitted). 14 Id. at 105. 15 Id. Case: 25-20131 Document: 80-1 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/06/2026

No. 25 - 20131 7 “ the duty encompasses o nly thos e hazards that ‘ are known to th e ves sel or shou ld be known to it in the e xercise of reasonable car e. ’” 16 Rente ria conte nds Grieg Star b reache d its turn over duty to warn of a latent h azard in th e carg o stow — namely, by f ailing to warn t he l ong shore men not to s tep on th e plastic she eting be cause th ere was not “ appropriate fall prote ction ” beneat h the st ow. While Renteria admits she “ was awar e of the gaps betwe en the rolls gene rally,” she con tends that th e plastic sh eetin g conce aled the ir regular gaps “and po sed as fall prote ction,” ther eby “ren dering the d anger latent an d not vis ible to a r eason ably compete nt stev edor e.” Grieg S tar responds th at even assuming th e plastic s heeting constitu ted a “def ect” within the cargo sto w, “it was none th eless open an d obvious ” to Renter ia a nd her st ev edor e for emen. Here, G rieg Sta r observed th e initial loading of the cargo and does not conte st that it kne w or sho uld have known of the alleged defect — i.e., the gap s betwee n rolls of kraft liner board under neath the p lastic sheetin g. 17 Accord ingly, we turn to whe ther the defective con dition was open and obvious. At the time o f the incide nt, Re nteria had be en doi ng the sam e work for multiple days, she had been disch arging kraft line r board from Hold 6 for t wo days, and the ste vedore cre w was rem oving th e last laye r of cargo from Hold 6. Rent eri a knew t here were ga ps bet ween t he c arg o underne ath the plast ic sheeti ng. She testifie d at the time of her f all, she “w as trying to step on top of the rolls [o f kraft line r board ],” bu t instead step ped on the plastic sh eetin g ________ ____ ___ _____ _ 16 Howlett, 512 U.S. at 105 (quotin g Scindia, 451 U.S. a t 167). 17 See Hernandez v. M/V R agaan, 841 F.2d 582, 586 (5th Cir.) (“If th e cond ition existed from th e outse t, the ship owner is cha rged with actua l knowled ge of the d a ngerous cond ition and h as a duty to warn the ste vedore and the longsho remen if the defect is hidden.”), opinion corrected on other grounds, 848 F.2d 498 (5th Cir.1988). Case: 25-20131 Document: 80-1 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/06/2026

No. 25 - 20131 8 witho ut know ing whethe r there was a ho le or a s pacer be neath her. R enteria furt her testified that sh e cou ld have lo oked throug h the ho les in th e plastic sheeti ng t o see whet her ther e was a ga p in t he a rea wh er e she s tepp ed b ut di d not do so beca use sh e w as work i ng. “ If th e long shorema n knew of the defect, then it i s consi dered ope n and obvi ous,” and ther e is no b reach of the turnover d uty. 18 H ere, Rent eria kne w that t here w ere gaps und ernea t h the plastic she eting, an d therefore the alle ged defect w as open and obvious. As Rente ria was aw are of the condition of the cargo stow, the shipow ner had no obligatio n to warn agains t this obvio us dang er. 19 The district co urt did not er r in con cluding th at Grieg Star did no t breach it s turnover d uty. B. The active control du ty applie s once steve doring o perations have begun a nd impo ses liability o n the shipo wne r “for inj ury caused by hazards under the c ontrol of the ship.” 20 Specifically, the shipow ner may be liabl e for injuri es if it “ actively involves itse lf in the c argo op eration s and n egligen tly injures a l ongshor eman,” or if it fails to exe rcise du e care to prote ct longshor emen “fr om ha zards they may encou nter i n areas, or from equ ipment, unde r the active contro l of the vessel du ring the stevedorin g operati on.” 21 “ Liability ba sed on this excepti on is not r eliev ed wh en th e hazard is ope n and ob vi ous. If, howe ver, a vesse l has relinquished control ________ ____ ___ _____ _ 18 Greenwood v. Societ e Francaise De, 111 F.3d 1239, 1246 (5th Cir. 1997). 19 Howlett, 512 U.S. at 105; Kirksey, 535 F.3d at 393. 20 Alvarado v. Briese Schiff ahr ts GmbH & C o. KG MS Sap phire, 16 1 F.4th 289, 296 (5th Cir. 2025) (quoting Si ngleton v. Guangzhou Ocean Shipping Co., 79 F.3d 26, 28 (5th Cir. 1996)); see also Howle t t, 512 U.S. a t 98. 21 Scindia, 451 U.S. at 167. Case: 25-20131 Document: 80-1 Page: 8 Date Filed: 03/06/2026

No. 25 - 20131 9 over an area to the stevedo re, then it is th e primary respons ibility of th e steved ore to re medy a hazard in that are a. ” 22 If active contro l is not main tained, once ste vedoring o peration s begin “the ship owner has no genera l duty t o m onito r the stev edori ng opera ti on . .., and it may re ly on th e ste vedore’ s judgment th at equ ipmen t is reaso nably safe for c ontinu ed use d uri ng the work.” 23 T o sho w the ex ist enc e of a genuine dispute of mater ial fact regard ing the active contr ol duty, the lon gshoreman must pr ovide evid ence that the shipown er exercised “active con trol ove r the actual m ethod s and o perative de tails o f the lo ngshoreman’s work. ” 24 Mere prese nce of the v ess el’ s c rew to moni tor the pr ogress of cargo o perat ions or ensu re “some de gree of ord erline ss” doe s not cons titute acti ve contr ol. 25 Here, Renteria co ntends Grieg Star breached the active co ntrol duty beca use ve ssel cre wmember s attend ed daily safe ty me etings w ith the stev edor e superv is or, oversaw cargo op eration s, and w ere ins tructed to interve ne if they s aw a longsho reman engaging in an unsafe practic e. Gr ieg Star con tends that th e reco rd “is d evoid o f an y fact . .. th at de monstrate s Grieg Star exercis ed actual con trol ove r the actual me thods and operative detail s of the l ongshore man’s wor k.” ________ ____ ___ _____ _ 22 Pimental v. LTD Can. Pac. Bul, 965 F. 2d 13, 16 (5th Cir. 1992) (c itation om itted). 23 Stass v. A m. Com. Lines, Inc., 720 F.2d 879, 882 (5 th Cir. 1983). 24 Alvarad o, 161 F.4th at 296 (q uotin g Pledg er v. Phil Guilbeau Offshore, Inc., 88 F. App ’ x 690, 69 2 (5th Cir. 20 04)). 25 Romero v. Caju n Stab ilizing Bo ats Inc., 307 F. App ’ x 849, 851 (5 th Cir. 2009) (pe r curia m) (citin g Fontenot v. United States, 89 F.3d 205, 208 (5th Cir. 1996)); see also Ma nso n Gulf, 878 F. 3d at 135. Case: 25-20131 Document: 80-1 Page: 9 Date Filed: 03/06/2026

No. 25 - 20131 10 On th is record, there is no basis for c onclud ing that Grie g Star attempte d to “actively invo lve” itse lf in the stevedoring op eration s. At t he time of the incid ent, t he carg o holds had been tur ned over to the stev edor e. The forema n or “lead ma n” of the long shore c rew provid ed all ins truct ions to the long shoreme n on how to di schar ge the cargo. R enteria herself tes tifi ed that she received all instruct ions fr om her fell ow longshor emen, never communi cat ed with any me mber of th e vessel ’s c rew, and no me mber of the vesse l’s crew was pr esent at the time of h er accide nt. T hat a memb er of t he vessel’s crew woul d over see the l oading a nd unl oading of carg o to monit or the pr ogres s of the operatio n, and e ither the capt ain or chie f mate w ould attend s afety meetin gs with the steve dore, do es not indic ate that the sh ip’s crew c ontro lled “the actua l meth ods and op erative details of the longshor eman ’ s work.” 26 Likewis e, the re is no basis to con clude that Grieg Star failed to pro tect Rente ria from any hazard en countered in areas un der the active con trol of the vessel. As a lread y note d, the ca rgo holds were t urned over to t he stev edore each day before cargo ope rations began. Renteria was inj ured in Hold 6, an area un der the active c ontro l of the ste vedore. Where a vessel “ has relinq uished control over an area to th e stevedore, then it is the primary respon sibility of the stevedo r e to reme dy a haz ard in that area.” 27 In the absence of any evidence that Hold 6 w as within th e active co ntrol of th e vesse l, the district co urt did n ot err in con cluding that Gr ieg Star breach ed no duty ow ed to Rent er ia. 28 ________ ____ ___ _____ _ 26 Alvar ado, 161 F.4th at 296 (quotin g Pled ger, 88 F. App ’ x at 692); see also R o mer o, 307 F. App ’ x. at 851 (citing Fontenot, 89 F.3d at 208). 27 Pimental, 965 F.2d at 16 (citation om itted). 28 As Renteria ’s claim o f vessel negligenc e fa ils, h er punitive d amages claim based on gross negligen ce ne cessarily fails. Case: 25-20131 Document: 80-1 Page: 10 Date Filed: 03/06/2026

No. 25 - 20131 11 IV. Becaus e Ren teria did n ot show a gen uine dispute of mate rial fac t as to her claim of vesse l negligen ce, the dis trict cou rt’s gran t of summary judgme nt to Grie g Smith is AFFIRM ED. Case: 25-20131 Document: 80-1 Page: 11 Date Filed: 03/06/2026