Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 625 SO2D 290 - Basham v. Trinity Industries

Basham v. Trinity Industries’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

1
cited by 1 later decisions
1
states following
January 1996
most recently cited

1 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 33 U.S.C. § 901 · 33 U.S.C. § 905

Relies on Scindia Steam Navigation Co. v. De Los Santos · Hill v. Texaco, Inc. · United States v. Schlansky · 557 So. 2d 999 - Osorio v. Waterman SS Corp. · Young v. Armadores De Cabotaje, SA

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “In Scindia, supra, [Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. DeLos Santos, 451 U.S. 156 , 101 S.Ct. 1614 , 68 L.Ed.2d 1 (1981) ] the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that, “[a]s a general matter, the shipowner may rely on the stevedore to avoid exposing the longshoremen to unreasonable hazards.” Scindia, at 451 U.S. 170 , 101 S.Ct. at 1623 . The Court then defined the shipowner’s duties under Section 905(b). Those duties were accurately summarized in Hill v. Texaco, Inc., 674 F.2d 447, 451 (5th Cir.1982), as follows: “First, before the stevedore begins his work, a shipowner must exercise care to make safe the portions of the ship that it turns over to the stevedore. In discharging this duty the ship may rely on the stevedore’s performing its task with reasonable care. The shipowner must also warn the stevedore of hidden unsafe conditions on the ship of which the ship is, or should be, aware. Second, once the stevedore begins its operations, the shipowner has no general duty to supervise work or to inspect the area assigned to the stevedore, unless custom, contract, or law imposes such a duty on the shipowner. The shipowner need not monitor the stevedore’s operations; rather, the shipowner is entitled to rely on the stevedore’s expertise and reasonableness. Third, the Supreme Court made an exception to the general absence of a duty of this shipowner to protect employees of the stevedore during cargo operations. The duty arises when two conditions are ^fulfilled. If the shipowner beco”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.