care under the circumstances” to turn over the ship and its equipment and appliances “in such condition that an expert and experienced stevedoring contractor, mindful of the dangers he should reasonably expect to encounter, arising from the hazards of the ship’s service or otherwise, will be able by the exercise of ordinary care” to carry on cargo operations “with reasonable safety to persons and property.” Howlett, 612 U.S. at 98, 114 S.Ct. 2057 (quoting Fed. Marine Terminals, Inc. v. Burnside Shipping Co., 394 U zed as a gangway, the turnover duty, at a minimum, requires a vessel to provide a safe means of access. See Gay v. Barge 266, 915 F.2d 1007, 1012 (5th Cir.1990); Romero Reyes, 494 F.2d at 869; cf. Davis v. Partenreederei M.S. Normannia, 657 F.2d 1048, 1053 (9th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). The only difference between the ramp used by
holding that the current property owner may not assert a public nuisance claim against the former owner holding that the vessel owner had a responsibility to correct the positioning of the gangway holding that the presence of the correct address in the sworn affidavit could correct a typographical error in the warrant holding that where both vessels had the same owner it was not an abuse of discretion to give 75 of the salvage award to the owner recognizing that the dominant easement owner not the servient estate owner bears responsibility for maintaining an easement