WPC hjY 43[+{5L׌1ɾaEÌlbAN$b+mmjMФms/em_VDOǀP~2Ā0y;G(T9VQ{t™x: -Vg?P2%ēW۾�Ѻ{[>7D)3bdz2fk.ocLـ*5׹ PJ]mxRi OVJmLqFmӫ}Xo! zF@ <{@GZ5٬v %E 0GK U:  ^ w 4   0c bd 0Dl l b E m N U8 R ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] BLLLLLLLLLLL 0iHP LaserJet 5/5M - Standard,,,,0<( 9Z+&Courier RegularX($XmTXXX,`  "CG Times Bold{$/s M/ H3|x(;3$ !X;XXX  - -($  *  - -U<4 9Z+ Courier New  H X$X;XXX    1    _Forathoroughhistoryofthe_LHWCA_,itsamendments,andcase  law,seeourenbancopinionin_Morehead_,97F.3dat60713.  X$X;XXX    2    _Insupportofthisclaim,Moreheademphasizedthat  8  8`   thebargesweresetalongsidethepierand \ werenotcarryingconstructionequipment... 2 .[and]AKhadinstructed[theemployeewho X leftthehatchopen]toopenthehatchoutso . thatAKcouldexercisewhatMoreheadargues    wasavesselfunctionhavingamarine  surveyorexaminethebargebeforereturningit  totheowner.\` x` x Id.at614. d(J2X$ !X;XXX      0   !X;XXX  _XXXX;G"XX8;XXdd8  *!@4 4 UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals  ^NG"@ FortheFirstCircuit  ٭^NX;X٭Ay) ` dE<C ` A D  No.021713  O @xx!WILLARDT.STEWART,   @ Plaintiff,Appellant, W  @tt)v. S  @0 0 DUTRACONSTRUCTIONCOMPANY,INC.,   @<< Defendant,Appellee. [ Ay) ` dE<` A - @ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT  @0 0 FORTHEDISTRICTOFMASSACHUSETTS n @[Hon.ReginaldC.Lindsay,U.S.DistrictJudge] j Ay) ` dE<` A  @'Before  @\ \ Torruella,LynchandHoward, -}  @hh#CircuitJudges.  S! Ay) ` dE<!` A !#     DavidB.Kaplan,withwhomThomasM.BondandTheKaplan/Bond "% Groupwereonbrief,forappellant. j#&   FrederickE._Connelly_,Jr.,withwhomPeabody&Arnold_LLP_was @$' onbrief,forappellee. %f ( Ay) ` dE<'` A '"+    @  @`  @  @  @h September4,2003 }(#- Ay) ` d E<(*` A  )*y%/L _  *!8;XXdXXd8*,X` XX* ` TORRUELLA,CircuitJudge. PlaintiffAppellantWillardT.  StewartappealsadecisionfromtheDistrictofMassachusetts x grantingsummaryjudgmenttoDefendantAppelleeDutraConstruction $t Company("Dutra"),Stewart'semployerandtheownerofthevessel   onwhichStewartwasinjured.FollowingourdecisioninMorehead |  v.AtkinsonKiewit,97F.3d603(1stCir.1996)(enbanc),we ( x  affirmthedistrictcourt'sgrantofsummaryjudgment. $  @tt) I.     ` DutraisadredgingcompanyhiredbytheCommonwealthof H  Massachusettstoperformdrilling,blasting,anddredgingworkfor D animmersedtubetunnelunderBostonHarbor,nowknownasthe"Ted  WilliamsTunnel."DutrausedthedredgeSUPERSCOOPandtheScow L 4forthiswork.TheSUPERSCOOPisatypicaldredgewitha H clamshellbucket;itsfunctionwastomovethroughBostonHarbor,  fromEastBostontoSouthBoston,diggingtheoceanbottomasit P moved.TheScow4wasusedinconjunctionwiththeSUPERSCOOP. L Itwouldbebroughtalongsidethedredgeandfilledwithsediment   anddredgingmaterialthathadbeenscoopedfromtheoceanbottom T!" bytheSUPERSCOOP.Oncefilled,theScow4wouldthentransport #P$ thematerialouttoseafordumping. $&  ` In1991,DutrahiredWillardStewart,amarineengineer, X&!( tomaintainthemechanicalsystemsoftheSUPERSCOOP.Stewart (T#* spentthemajorityofhistimeaboardtheSUPERSCOOP,though )%, occasionallyhewasrequiredtoperformmaintenancetasksaboard \+&. theScow4.Onesuchtaskoccurredwhenthescow'sengine  malfunctioned,sometimeinthemiddleofJuly,1993.Withthe \ scow'sengineoutofcommission,thescowdoorscouldnotbeopened X orclosed;asaresult,dredgingoperationscametoatemporary   halt.Torepairthescow,DutrahiredSouthworthMilton,an `  independentcontractor,whichsentitsrepresentative,Timothy  \  Angell,torepairtheengine.Dutraalsoarrangedforseveralof   itsemployees,includingStewart,toassistintherepairprocess. d  Eventuallyitwasdeterminedthattheenginewasbeyondrepairand `  wouldneedtobereplaced.    ` AccesstotheenginewasviaahatchontheScow4.The h oldenginewasremoved,andanewenginewasloweredintothescow d bymeansofacrane.Atsomepointitwasdeterminedthata  protectiverailingguardingthehatchobstructedtheremovalofthe l oldengine.Theprotectiverailingwassubsequentlyremoved. h  ` OnJuly15,1993,AngellandStewartwereworkingaboard  theScow4.Angellwasworkingintheenginearea,andhadbeen p  fortwoorthreedays.Stewartwaskneelingovertheunguarded !l" openhatch,abouttenfeetabovetheenginearea,feedingwires "$ throughthehatch.WhileStewartwasprecariouslyperchedabove t$& thehatch,theSUPERSCOOP'screwmovedthescow.Atsomepointin  &p!( themovingprocess,therewasajolt,andStewartplummeted '#*  headfirsttoadeckbelow.Hewasseriously_injured. x)$,  ` StewartfiledacomplaintfordamagesundertheJones   Act,46U.S.C.688.Thecomplaintwasamendedtoaddan \ alternativecountforvesselnegligencepursuantto905(b)ofthe X _Longshore_ԀandHarborWorkers'CompensationAct(_LHWCA_),33U.S.C.   901etseq.,authorizingcoveredemployeestosuethevesselas `  athirdpartyforinjurycausedbythenegligenceofavessel.  \  Stewart'sJonesActand_LHWCA_Ԁclaimswerepredicateduponthree   allegedactsofnegligence.StewartarguesthatDutrawas d  negligentin:(1)causingthescowtocrashsuddenlyintotheSUPER `  SCOOP;(2)failingtosoundawarningblastpriortomovingthe   scow;and(3)creatinganunsafeworkenvironmentbyremovingthe h protectiverailingaroundthehatch. d  ` Dutrarespondedwithmotionsforsummaryjudgmentonboth  counts.RulingfirstontheJonesActcount,thedistrictcourt l concludedthatbecausetheSUPERSCOOPwasnota"vessel,"asthat h termisdefinedbytheJonesAct,Dutrawasentitledtoanawardof  summaryjudgment.Stewartappealedthatdecision,andweaffirmed, p  concludingthattheSUPERSCOOPisnot"a'vesselinnavigation'as !l" thattermhasdevelopedinthejurisprudenceoftheJonesAct." "$ Stewartv.DutraConstr.Co.,230F.3d461,469(1stCir.2000) t$& (StewartI).  &p!(  ` FollowingourdecisioninStewartI,Dutrarenewedits '#* motionforsummaryjudgmentonthe_LHWCA_Ԁclaim.Thedistrictcourt x)$, grantedthemotion,andstatedonlythatitwasgrantingDutra's $+t&. motionforsummaryjudgmentbasedontheapplicationof_Morehead_v.  Atkinson_Kiewit_,97F.3d603(1stCir.1996)(enbanc).Stewart \ nowappealsthatdecision. X @88) II.     ` Summaryjudgmentisproperifthepleadings,depositions, |  answerstointerrogatories,andadmissionsonfileshowthatthere ( x  isnogenuineissueastoanymaterialfactandthatthemoving $  partyisentitledtojudgmentasamatteroflaw.Rosenbergv.   CityofEverett,328F.3d12,17(1stCir.2003)(citingFed.R. ,|  Civ.P.56(c)(2003)).Wereviewthedistrictcourt'sawardof ( summaryjudgmentdenovo,construingtherecordinthelightmost  favorabletoStewartandresolvingallreasonableinferencesinhis 0 favor.Id. ,    @` A."Vessel"Status   % ` UnliketheStewartICourt,weneednotlaboroverthe P "vessel"statusoftheSUPERSCOOPorscowforpurposesofthe L _LHWCA_.Althoughthe_LHWCA_Ԁpermitsanemployeetosueinnegligence   onlyintheeventofaninjurycausedbythenegligenceofa T!" vessel,33U.S.C.905(b),the_LHWCA_'sdefinitionof"vessel"is #P$ "significantlymoreinclusivethanthatusedforevaluatingseaman $& statusundertheJonesAct."_Morehead_,97F.3dat607. X&!( Accordingly,Dutrahasconcededthatfor_LHWCA_Ԁpurposes,theSUPER (T#* SCOOPandScow4are"vessels."  )%, _@  B.DualCapacityCasesUndertheLHWCA    ` TheLHWCAisacomprehensiveworker'scompensationsystem x whichholdsemployersliableforcompensatingcoveredemployees $t injuredinthecourseoftheiremployment,regardlessoffault.O   1      ׀   33U.S.C.904.Thestatutorynofaultcompensationpayments |  providedbytheLHWCAareconsidered"exclusiveandinplaceofall ( x  otherliabilityofsuchemployertotheemployee."Id.905(a). $  Therefore,employeescoveredbytheLHWCAarestatutorilybarred   fromsuingtheiremployersforinjuriesincurredinthecourseof ,|  theiremployment.However,whilethecompensationschemeisthe ( employee'sexclusiveremedyregardinghisemployer,theemployeeis  stillfreetosuethevesselownerasathirdpartyifhisinjury 0 wascausedbythenegligenceofthevessel. ,  ` Where,ashere,thesameentityisbothemployerand  vesselowner,thequestionbecomeswhetherthedualcapacity 4 defendant'sallegedactsofnegligencewerecommittedinits 0 capacityquaemployer(forwhichitisimmunefromtortliability   under905(a))orquavesselowner(forwhichitmaybeheld 8!" liableunder905(b)).SeeMorehead,97F.3dat610.Thoughdual "4$ capacitycasesarebynaturecomplex,wefortunatelyproceedunder $& theguidanceofMorehead,whichhasalreadyaddressedmostofthe <&!( dualcapacityissuesraisedbytheappellants. '8#*  `  1.Moreheadv.AtkinsonKiewit    ` InMorehead,theenbancCourtconsideredadualcapacity x claimverysimilartothiscase.Moreheadwasemployedasa $t carpenteronabridgeconstructionprojectandalinehandlerona   bargeusedfortheproject.Id.at605.AtkinsonKiewit("AK"), |  theconstructioncontractor,wasnotonlyMorehead'semployer,but, ( x  aschartererofthebarge,wasalsothevesselowner.Id.at606 $  07(notingthatunder33U.S.C.902(21)bareboatchartererssuch   asAKwereliableasvesselownersunder905(b)).While ,|  Moreheadwashandlingaheavylineonthebargedeck,hestepped ( backwardsintoanopenhatchandwasinjured.Thehatchhad  negligentlybeenleftopenbyacoworker,who,likeMorehead,had 0 beenhiredbothforcarpenterandscowmanduties.Id.at614. ,  ` TheplaintiffarguedthatAKviolatedvesseldutiesowed  toMoreheadbecauseatthetimehewasinjured"AKasvessel 4 (ratherthanAKasemployer)[had]'activecontrol'overtheopen 0 hatch."Id.Thatis,becausenoconstructionpurpose(and   thereforenoemploymentpurpose)wasbeingpursuedatthetimeof 8!" hisinjury,thehatchwaswithinAK'scontrolinitscapacityas "4$ avesselowner,notanemployer.P   2      ׀Id. $&  ` Werejectedthisargument,andfoundinsteadthatboth  Moreheadandtheemployeewholeftthehatchopen"hadbeenhired \ bothforcarpenterandscowmanduties."Id.Wenotedthatboth X employees"wereexpectedaspartoftheiremploymentdutiestolend   ahandwithsupportingmaritimechoresaswellastopursuetheir `  particularconstructiontrade."Id.Consequently,weagreedthat  \  AK's"activecontrol"overtheopenhatchwas"therefore   attributabletoitasemployer,notasvessel,sincethehatchwas d  opened...andthelinethrowninthecourseofharborworker `  dutieswhichbothmenwereregularlyhiredtoperform."Id.Since   bothmenwereactingasemployees,ratherthanasAK'sagentina h distinctshipowner'scapacity,wefoundthatanynegligenceonA d K'spartwascommittedinitscapacityquaemployer.Id.at616.  Asaresult,Morehead'ssuitwasbarredunder905(a).Id. l  ` Inreachingthisconclusion,weexpresslyrejectedany h dualcapacityapproachthatwouldfocusonthespecificactivities  oftheemployeetodeterminewhethertheemployee'sactionswere p  benefittingthedefendantinitscapacityasvesselowneror !l" employeratthetimetheemployeewasinjured.Id.at61415. "$  Thatis,werejectedany"functional"approachwhichwouldlead_us t$& toquestionwhetheranaccidentoccurred"infurtheranceofa  'construction'objectiveora'vessel'objective."Id.Westated: \  8 ` A"functional"interpretation,hingingthe X typeofliabilityonthenatureandpurposeof . thedutiesbeingperformedbycovered   employeesatanygiventime,wouldincrease   uncertaintyandthefrequencyofdisputesover `  thescopeofthecoverage.As[thetwo 6   employeesinvolvedintheaccidents]  \  employmentcontemplatedthattheywould  2  alternatefrequentlybetweenconstructionand   _linehandling_,asingleoverallclassification   oftheirdutiesismostappropriatefor d  determiningthetypesofremediesavailable.: ` x` x @Id.at615.Becausethe"functional"approachincreased 6 uncertaintyandcontravenedtheCongressionalintentbehindthe  _LHWCA_Ԁbyexpandingvesselownerliability,weconcludedthatthe > dualcapacityvesselcouldbeheldliableundersection905(b)only : totheextentthatitbreacheditsdutiesofcarewhileactingin  itscapacityasavessel.Id. B @( III.  >  ` Stewartmakestwoargumentsinsupportofhisclaimthat  Dutra'sallegedlynegligentactionsoccurredinitscapacityas b ! vesselowner,ratherthaninitscapacityasemployer.First, "^# Stewartclaimsbecausethescowhadbeentakenoutofserviceand # % haddonenodredgingworkfortwodayspriortotheaccident,the f% ' workStewartwasperformingwhenhewasinjuredcanonlybe 'b") considered"vessel"work.Second,StewartaversthatDutra ($+ remainedin"actualcontrol"oftheareawherehewasinjured j*%- becausetheengineandhatchareaofthevesselwereunderthe ,f'/ "actualcontrol"ofTimothy_Angell_,anindependentmaritimeagent  workingdistinctlyonbehalfofthevessel.Stewartcontendsthat \ becauseDutracreatedthenegligentconditionthatwasthe X proximatecauseofStewart'sinjuriesthroughitsagentasvessel   owner,DutrabreacheditsvesseldutiestoStewartandisliable `  under905(b).Aftercarefulconsideration,weconcludethatthe  \  formerargumentispreciselythesortof"functional"analysis   precludedby_Morehead_;thelatterwerejectasprocedurally d  defaulted. `  @ A.Stewart'sFunctionalDualcapacityAnalysis     ` Stewart'sfirstargumentisessentiallythatallinjuries  occurringincidenttorepairworkonavesselimplicatethe 0 defendant'scapacityasavesselownerratherthanasanemployer. , AccordingtoStewart,itissignificantthatthescowhadbeen  takenoutofserviceandhaddonenodredgingfortwodayspriorto 4 theaccident.Oncethecrew(Stewartincluded)wasdivertedfrom 0 theirordinarydredgingactivitiestoworkonrepairrelated   activities,theworktheyperformedcouldonlybeconsidered 8!" "vessel"work,not"dredging"work.Tosupportthisargument, "4$ Stewartarguesbyanalogythat"[_i]f_ԀDutradredgingcompanyhad $& charteredtheScow4fromanotherentity,itwouldhavereturned <&!( theScow4tosaidentitytoreplacetheengine.Adredging '8#* contractorwouldnotpurchaseanewengineinavesselitdidnot )$, own."Moreover,the_Southworth_ԀMiltonemployeehiredtorepairthe @+&. enginehadnothingtodowiththedredgingoperation.Asaresult,  Stewartmaintainsthattherepairoperationsthatledtohisinjury \ furtheredadistinctly"vessel"objective. X  ` Thisargumentdoesnotdifferfromthe"functional"   analysisrejectedbythe_Morehead_Courtinanysignificantway.In `  _Morehead_,theplaintiffarguedthatthepurposeofleavingthe  \  hatchopenfurtheredthevessel'spurposes,anddidnotfurtherany   employmentpurpose.Rejectingthisargument,wenotedthatthe d  _LHWCA_Ԁhadbeenamendedto"provideemployeesandemployerswitha `  greaterdegreeofcertaintyastothecoverageineffect."Id.at   615.Accordingly,thelegislativehistoryofthe1984Amendments h documentsthelegislature'sconcernsaboutpredicatingcoverage d uponthenatureofthetasktheemployeewasperformingwhen  injured: l 8 ` Thesituationinwhichaworkermaybecovered h atonetime,andnotcoveredatanother, > dependingonthenatureoftheworkwhichthe  workerisperformingatthetimeoftheinjury  mustbeavoidedsincesucharesultwouldbe p  enormouslydestabilizingandwouldthusdefeat F ! oneoftheessentialpurposesofthe !l" amendments.!B#` x` x UId.(quotingH.R.Rep.No.98570(I),98thCong.,2dSess., #% reprintedin1984_U.S.C.C.A.N._Ԁ2734,273637). J% '  ` Eschewingthisapproach,wenotedthat"asistypicalin &F") thecaseofharborworkers...[employees]wereexpectedaspart (#+ oftheiremploymentdutiestolendahandwithsupportingmaritime N*%- choresaswellastopursuetheirparticularconstructiontrade." +J'/ Id.at614.Sinceboth_Morehead_Ԁandtheemployeewholeftthe  hatchopenwereperformingtasksthatwerecontemplatedbythe \ termsoftheiremployment,wedeemedthatthedefendantwasliable X onlyinitscapacityasemployer.    ` Like_Morehead_,Stewartwasperformingtheworkhewas `  hiredtodo.AlthoughStewartspentthemajorityofhistime  \  aboardtheSUPERSCOOP,he,liketheotheremployeesontheSUPER   SCOOP,washiredtoperformtasksrelatingbothtodredgingandto d  occasionalmaintenanceworkonbothvessels.Hisjobcontemplated `  performingmaintenancetasksonavarietyofenginesandmachinery   relatedtothedredgingprocess,includingenginesusedforthe h dredgingcrane,scowengines,anddeckwinchesusedformovingthe d dredge.Hewasthereforeperforminghisregulardutiesasan  engineeronadredgingoperation. l  ` Stewarthasnotcitedanycasestotheeffectthatmajor h repairworkonavesselisinherentlyvesseloriented,andnot  employmentorientedwork.Given_Morehead_'sexplicitrejectionof p  a"functional"approachtodualcapacitycasesandCongress'splain !l" intentiontoavoidcreatinguncertaintyastoactionscoveredby "$ the_LHWCA_,wearecompelledtorejectthisargument. t$& @0 0  B.Dutra's"ActiveControl"Duty   &p!(  ` StewartnextarguesthatDutrabreacheditsvesselduties '8#* tohimbyremaininginactivecontrolover,andcreatinganunsafe )$, conditionin,theareawherehewasinjured.Thisargumentis @+&. basedonvesseldutiesestablishedbytheSupremeCourtin_Scindia_  SteamNavigationCo.v.DelosSantos,451U.S.156,17576(1981). \  ` In_Morehead_,weconcludedthattheownerofadual X capacityvesselcouldbeheldliableunder905(b)whereit   breachedits_Scindia_dutieswhileactinginitscapacityasvessel. `  _Morehead_,97F.3dat615.The_Scindia_Courtarticulatedthree  \  typesofdutiesavesselownerowedtostevedoringemployees.   First,shipownershaveadutytoturnover"theshipandits d  equipmentinsuchconditionthatanexpertandexperienced `  stevedorewillbeablebytheexerciseofreasonablecaretocarry   onitscargooperationswithreasonablesafety."_Scindia_,451U.S. h at167.Thisduty,commonlyreferredtoasthe"turnoverduty," d includesadutytowarnthestevedoreoflatentdangersthatcould  notbediscoveredthroughtheexerciseofreasonablecare. l  ` Second,oncestevedoringoperationshavebegun,the h vesselownerwillbeliableifit"activelyinvolvesitselfinthe  cargooperationsandnegligentlyinjuresalongshoreman."Id. p  _That_Ԁis,ifthevesselownermaintainsactivecontroloveranarea !l" oroperation,thevesselisliableforanyinjuriesitnegligently "$ inflictsincidenttotheareaoroperation.Id. t$&  ` Finally,ashipownerhasadutytointervenetoprotect  &p!( stevedoringworkersifitacquiresactualknowledgethatthevessel '#*  orequipmentposeadangerandthestevedoreisnotexercising x)$, reasonablecaretoprotectitsemployeesfromthatrisk.Id.at  17576. \   ` AccordingtoStewart,boththeareawheretheincident X occurredandtherepairactivitiesthatweretakingplacethere   wereunderthecontrolof_Angell_,whowasactingasaseparate `  maritimeagentspecificallyforthevessel.Thepresenceof  \  _Angell_,Stewartargues,distinguishesthiscasefrom_Morehead_   becauseinthatcase,wenotedthat"[_t]he_Ԁallegedlynegligent d  conditions(theopenhatchandtheabsenceofwarnings)werenot `  attributabletotheerrorsofseparatemaritimeagentsacting   specificallyforthevessel."_Morehead_,97F.3dat614.Stewart h thereforecontendsthatthrough_Angell_,Dutraasvesselownerknew d orshouldhavebeenawareofthedangercreatedbyremovingthe  protectiverailingsaroundthehatch;Dutraisthereforeliablein l itscapacityas_vesselowner_Ԁforitsallegedbreachof_Scindia_'s h "activecontrol"duty.   ` WedeclinetoconsiderwhetherDutra'sactionsandthe p  presenceof_Angell_Ԁintheengineroomwarrantconsiderationunder !l" _Scindia_.Stewart'scontentionthatDutraretainedactivecontrol "$ overtheengine/hatchareaisprocedurallydefaultedbyhisfailure t$& toraisetheissuebeforethedistrictcourt."Thelawinthis  &p!( circuitiscrystalline:alitigant'sfailuretoexplicitlyraisean '#* issuebeforethedistrictcourtforeclosesthatpartyfromraising x)$, theissueforthefirsttimeonappeal."BostonBeerCo.Ltd. $+t&. _P'ship.v.SlesarBros.BrewingCo.,9F.3d175,180(1stCir.  1993).Inthedistrictcourt,Stewart'soppositiontoDutra's \ motionforsummaryjudgmentmadeonlypassingmentionofTimothy X Angell,andatnopointcontendedthathewasa"separatemaritime   agent"whosepresencedistinguishesthiscasefromMorehead. `  Indeed,the"activecontrol"argumentseemstohavesurfacedfor  \  thefirsttimeinStewart'sbriefstothisCourt.    ` Inhisbriefsbeforethedistrictcourt,Stewartrefers d  toAngellasa"mechanic"workingfor"independentcontractor," `  SouthworthMilton.Nowheredoeshemakeanyotherreferencetothe   legaloremploymentstatusofAngell,nordoesheotherwisediscuss h whetherAngellexercisedactualcontroloverthescoworany d portionthereof.Thesepassingreferencesdonotamounttoan  argumentthatAngellwasaseparatemaritimeagentinactual l controlofthescow.SeeDiMarcoZappav.Cabanillas,238F.3d25, h 34(1stCir.2001)("Simplynotinganargumentinpassingwithout  explanationisinsufficienttoavoidwaiver.");Beaudettv.Cityof p  Hampton,775F.2d1274,1278(4thCir.1985)(appellatecourts !l" shouldnotpermit"fleetingreferencestopreservequestionson "$ appeal").Wethereforereject,asprocedurallydefaulted, t$& Stewart'scontentionthatAngell'sactivityaboardthescow  &p!( distinguishesthiscasefromMoreheadortriggersScindialiability '#* intheformofabreachoftheactivecontrolduty.  x)$, @88) IV.    ` OurdecisioninMoreheadcompelsustofindthat x Stewart'sclaimisbarredby905(a)becausehewasinjuredwhile $t performinghisregulardutiesasanengineeronadredging   operation.Thedistrictcourt'sgrantofsummaryjudgmentis |  affirmed. ( x   ` Affirmed.  $