HOUSTON, TX—Merkley Jones Eastham has recently scored multiple wins in appeals involving significant longshore personal injuries. In two cases argued before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Firm obtained opinions affirming trial court summary judgments in cases involving 7-figure settlement demands. In the third case, the 14th Court of Appeals affirmed a take-nothing judgment on a jury verdict of no negligence in favor of the Firm’s vessel operator client in a traumatic brain injury case with a $50 million pre-trial demand. Please see the following recaps of all three cases.
Alvarado v. Briese Schiffahrts GmbH & Co. KG MS Sapphire
No. 24 20476 (5th Cir. Dec. 8, 2025)
Holding: Summary judgment for vessel interests affirmed; no vessel negligence under § 905(b).
Key points:
- Longshoreman slipped while descending a vessel ladder into a dim, fog filled cargo hold.
- Plaintiff sued vessel owner/operator and terminal operator for negligence under the LHWCA. Plaintiff’s settlement demand was in excess of $3 million.
- The Fifth Circuit held the defendants owed no turnover or active control duty:
- Lighting and visibility conditions were open and obvious to an experienced longshore worker.
- The vessel did not retain active control over the cargo operation or ladder use.
- Absence of a § 905(b) duty meant no negligence or gross negligence claim could proceed.
Renteria v. Grieg Star AS
No. 25 20131 (5th Cir. Mar. 6, 2026)
Holding: Summary judgment for vessel technical manager affirmed.
Key points:
- Longshore worker fell ten feet after stepping on plastic sheeting covering gaps between stowed rolls of Kraft linerboard.
- Plaintiff alleged vessel negligence for violating the turnover duty and active control duty. Plaintiff’s settlement demand was in excess of $3 million.
- The Fifth Circuit rejected both theories:
- The gap beneath the plastic was an open and obvious condition, eliminating any turnover duty to warn claim.
- The vessel’s involvement was limited to general safety meetings and oversight, not operational control.
- Cargo operations and work methods remained entirely under the stevedore’s control.
- Without an underlying duty breach, punitive damage claims also failed.
Bottom line takeaway from the Alvarado & Renteria cases
Both decisions reaffirm the Fifth Circuit’s restrictive view of vessel liability under § 905(b): open and obvious conditions and routine safety oversight do not create vessel duties absent retained operational control.
Norman v. KSBV
No. 14-24-00176-CV (March 31, 2026)
Holding: On appeal from the 334th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas; jury verdict of no negligence on the part of vessel interests in a traumatic brain injury under § 905(b) affirmed. Plaintiff’s final pre-trial settlement demand was $50 million.
Key points:
- Longshoreman struck by 14-ton lifting frame being lowered from heavy lift vessel to dockside for disassembly.
- Plaintiff sued vessel operator for negligence alleging that the crane operator (a vessel crew member) got the load stuck, tried to lift it unsuccessfully several times, causing the load to swing out of control striking Plaintiff and causing severe injuries to her head, brain, neck and back.
- The jury answered “No” to Jury Question No. 1 regarding whether Defendant’s negligence under the “active control” duty and “duty to intervene” caused the incident in question and the trial court rendered a take-nothing judgment on the jury’s verdict.
- The 14th Court of Appeals held that Plaintiff failed to preserve error as to her complaints of charge error and that the trial court did not err by submitting a single broad-form negligence question to the jury.