Co., 394 U.S. 404, 415, 89 S.Ct. 1144, 22 L.Ed.2d 371 (1969)). Abruska’s common-law negligence claim involves only one dimension of this generalized duty of care, the turnover duty of safe condition, which requires “exercising ordinary care under the circumstances to have the ship and its equipment in such condition that an expert and experienced stevedore will be able by the exercise of reasonable care to carry on its cargo operations with reasonable safety to persons and property.” Id. at 167, 101 S.Ct. 1614. The vessel therefore owed Abruska a duty to turn over the Baranof Trader in such condition that Northland Services, acting in its capacity as the employer, would be able to pursue its stevedoring operations with reasonable , 241 U.S. 344, 351, 36 S.Ct. 668, 60 L.Ed. 1037 (1916) (<HOLDING>); cf. Torres v. Johnson Lines, N.Y.K., 932 F.2d
holding that district courts failure to hold evidentiary hearing to ascertain whether defendant breached plea agreement was harmless when it was clear defendant breached agreement holding that in the absence of a product malfunction a plaintiff cannot establish that a defendant breached any duty owed recognizing that whether a duty exists is a question of law for the courts holding that question of whether defendant breached duty under applicable safety statutes was not one for experts holding that at a minimum the defendant must have breached some duty created by a labor contract to be liable for a violation under section 301a