owed plaintiff some duty of care. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552-53, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). In addition to demonstrating that their time charter arrangement was a standard one, Cetragpa filed affidavits affirmatively denying that it exercised any control over the crew’s operations. As the non-moving party with the ultimate burden o 542 F.2d 145, 151 (2d Cir.1976) (same). Because the Fourth Circuit has never directly- addressed this issue, the plaintiff wishes to preserve his objections to the dismissal of Cetragpa for a possible appeal. This Court repeats the conclusion of Harris that Turner and Fernandez are unpersuasive and in conflict with the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Bernard v. U.S. Lines, Inc., 475 F.2d 1134, 1135-36 (4th Cir.1973) (<HOLDING>). IV. In addition, the Court finds that
holding that a charter party creates no contractual duty towards a longshoreman on the part of a time charterer holding that clause 8 of the nype charter party expressly makes the time charterer hable for the vessels neghgence holding that clause eight requires time charterer to indemnify shipowner for any damages awarded because of injury to longshoreman holding that the duty of good faith and fair dealing is a contractual duty holding that clause eight imposes liability on time charterer for injuries to longshoremen