Opinion
Argued and Submitted May 3, 2005.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)
Jeffrey M. Winter, Esq., San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
E. Kenneth Purviance, Esq., Hughes and Nunn, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. M. James Lorenz, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-01-00413-MJL/RBB.
Before: O'SCANNLAIN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and WHALEY, U.S. District Judge.
The Honorable Robert H. Whaley, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The district court's conclusion that Bahia, which owned the vessel on which William E. Graham was injured, did not owe Graham a duty of care under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act was not erroneous.
Because Graham was an employee of BH, rather than of Bahia; because BH had control over Graham's work; and because Graham was "injured by a defective condition he was hired to correct;" the district court properly found that Bahia was not liable for Graham's injury. See Peters v. Titan Navigation Co., 857 F.2d 1342, 1344 (9th Cir.1988); see also Scindia Steam Navigation Co., Ltd. v. De Los Santos, 451 U.S. 156, 166-69, 175-76, 101 S.Ct. 1614, 68 L.Ed.2d 1 (1981) (describing the duties owed by a vessel owner).
AFFIRMED.