source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Justice White Justice Brennan, Justice Powell,

license: Public Domain

text:
    SCINDIA STEAM NAVIGATION CO., LTD. v. DE LOS SANTOS et al.
    No. 79-512.
    Argued December 1, 1980
    Decided April 21, 1981

      White, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all other Members joined except Burgee, C. J., who took no part in the decision of the case. BrennaN, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Marshall and BlackmuN, JJ., joined, post, p. 179. Powell, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which RehNQUist, J., joined, post, p. 180.

      Graydon S. Staring argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Robert H. Madden.

      James A. Grutz argued the cause for respondents and filed a brief for respondent De Los Santos.

        Harry M. Philo, Arthur Both, and Nathan Baker filed a brief for the Association of Trial Lawyers of America as amicus curiae urging affirmance.

        E. D. Vickery filed a brief for Apex Marine Corp. et al. as amici curiae.

   Justice White

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Respondent Santos, a longshoreman and an employee of respondent Seattle Stevedore Co., was injured while he was helping load the M/S Jalaratna, a vessel owned by petitioner Scindia Steam Navigation Co., Ltd. He later brought an action against Scindia pursuant to § 5 (b) of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (Act), as amended in 1972, which, as set forth in 33 U. S. C. § 905 (b), provides in relevant part as follows:

“In the event of injury to a person covered under this chapter caused by the negligence of a vessel, then such person, or anyone otherwise entitled to recover damages by reason thereof, may bring an action against such vessel as a third party in accordance with the provisions of section 933 of this title, and the employer shall not be liable to the vessel for such damages directly or indirectly and any agreements or warranties to the contrary shall be void. . . . The liability of the vessel under this subsection shall not be based upon the warranty of seaworthiness or a breach thereof at the time the injury occurred. The remedy provided in this subsection shall be exclusive of all other remedies against the vessel except remedies available under this chapter.”

The District Court granted petitioner’s motion for summary judgment; the Court of Appeals, disagreeing with the District Court on both the facts and the law, reversed 'and' remanded for further proceedings. 598 F. 2d 480 (CA9 1979). We granted certiorari, 446 U. S. 934, because the Courts of Appeals are in considerable disagreement as to the meaning and application of § 905 (b).

I

For present purposes, we take the facts from the opinion of the Court of Appeals, which properly viewed the case in the light most favorable to Santos, against whom summary judgment had been granted.

On December 10, 1972, Seattle Stevedore Co., pursuant to its undertaking with Scindia, was engaged in loading a cargo of wheat into a hold of the M/S Jalaratna. A winch, part of the ship’s gear, was being used to lower wooden pallets, each containing seventy 50-pound sacks of wheat, into the hold. Because of the location of the winch controls, the longshoreman operator relied on the hatch tender, another longshoreman, to signal him when to start and stop the winch while lowering a pallet of sacks into the hold. Santos and three other longshoremen were in the hold. Their task was to remove sacks of wheat from the pallet and properly stow them.

On the day of the accident, as it had for the two previous days, the braking mechanism of the winch was malfunctioning in that it would not quickly stop the descent of a loaded pallet, which would continue to drop for several feet before coming to a stop. At the time important here, while a pallet was being lowered, the hatch tender signaled the winch operator to stop the descent of the load. The brake was applied, but the pallet did not stop before striking a pallet jack with some force and spilling about half the sacks of wheat from the pallet. The hatch tender signaled the operator to raise the pallet about 15 feet and, believing that the remaining sacks on the pallet were secure enough not to fall, permitted Santos and the other men to clear away the spilled sacks then lying below in the hold. Some minutes later, however, more sacks fell from the pallet, striking and injuring Santos. There was dispute as to whether the additional sacks fell because the suspended pallet was swinging back and forth or because while the pallet was suspended the braking mechanism slipped on three or four occasions, each time requiring the operator to raise it again, thus working loose the additional sacks that fell on Santos.

Relying on the legislative history of the 1972 Amendments to the Act, the District Court held that the negligence standards governing the longshoreman’s action against a shipowner under § 905 (b) are best expressed in Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 343 and 343A (1965), which purport to state the prevailing or preferred rules governing the liability of a possessor of land to an invitee. Under these land-based negligence standards, the District Court thought

“a shipowner is not liable for dangerous conditions created by the stevedore’s negligence while the stevedore [is] in exclusive control over the manner and area of the work . . . , nor is the shipowner under a duty to warn the stevedore or his employees of dangers or open and obvious defects which are known to the stevedore or his employees or which are so obvious and apparent that they may reasonably be expected to discover them.” 1976 A. M. C. 2583, 2585.

Based on the admissions of the parties and the depositions available to the court, the District Court concluded (1) that there was no dispute that the premises were in the exclusive control of Seattle during the loading operation and (2) that even if Seindia knew or should have known of the defective winch, the condition of the winch “was open and obvious to the plaintiff” and “the fact that plaintiff undertook his actions free from any direction by the defendant while recognizing that the circumstances were so dangerous, is such that the defendant cannot be held liable as a matter of law.” Id., at 2586-2587. In addition, the District Court found that “the alleged defective condition of the winch had only a remote cause-of-fact relationship to plaintiff’s accident and could not have been the proximate cause thereof as a matter of law.” Id., at 2587. Hence, summary judgment was granted.

Reversing, the Court of Appeals disagreed with the District Court and with other Courts of Appeals with respect to the applicable law. Sections 343 and 343A of the Restatement were improper measures of the shipowner’s liability for negligence under § 905 (b) because those sections in effect incorporated notions of contributory negligence and assumption of risk that were inapplicable under the maritime law. Instead, the Court of Appeals declared the controlling standard under § 905 (b) to be the following:

“A vessel is subject to liability for injuries to longshoremen working on or near the vessel caused by conditions on the vessel if, but only if, the shipowner
“(a) knows of, or by the exercise of reasonable care would discover, the condition, and should realize that it involves an unreasonable risk of harm to such longshoremen, and
“(b) the shipowner fails to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances to protect the longshoremen against the danger.” 598 F. 2d, at 485.

Under this standard, Scindia’s duty to inspect did not end even if the vessel was turned over to the stevedore in safe condition. If conditions dangerous to the longshoremen subsequently developed, in light of the vessel’s practical opportunities to discover the dangers and remedy them, failure to do so could be negligence on its part.

Under the Court of Appeals’ view of the law there were several material facts in dispute that were for a jury to resolve: whether the shipowner knew or should have known of the defective winch; whether Seattle was in exclusive control of the loading in the sense that only Seattle could have repaired the winch; whether the defective operation of the winch had caused the initial spillage of the sacks, thus necessitating a cleanup, or had later been the proximate cause of the additional sacks falling from the pallet and injuring Santos. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals set aside the judgment of the District Court and remanded for further proceedings.

II

Initially, we must briefly revisit the 1972 Amendments to the Act. Prior to 1972, a longshoreman injured while loading or unloading a ship could receive compensation payments and also have judgment against the shipowner if the injury was caused by the ship’s unseaworthiness or negligence. Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U. S. 85 (1946). Proof of unseaworthiness required no proof of fault on the part of the shipowner other than an unsafe, injury-causing condition on the vessel. This was true even though the condition was caused, created, or brought into play by the stevedore or its employees. In the latter event, the shipowner could recover over against a stevedore for breach of express or implied warranty to handle the cargo in a reasonably safe manner. Ryan Stevedoring Co. v. Pan-Atlantic S.S. Corp., 350 U. S. 124 (1956).

The 1972 Amendments, particularly by adding § 905 (b), radically changed this scheme of things. The compensation payments due the longshoreman from the stevedore for injuries incurred in the course of his employment were substantially increased; the longshoreman’s right to recover for unseaworthiness was abolished; his right to recover from the shipowner for negligence was preserved in § 905 (b), which provided a statutory negligence action against the ship; and the stevedore’s obligation to indemnify the shipowner if the latter was held liable to the longshoreman was abolished.

Section 905 (b) did not specify the acts or omissions of the vessel that would constitute negligence. In light of the differences among the lower federal courts as to the construction and application of § 905 (b), neither can it be said that the legislative history, which has been analyzed and reanalyzed in the course of these cases, furnishes sure guidance for construing § 905 (b). Much was left to be resolved through the “application of accepted principles of tort law and the ordinary process of litigation.” Rep., p. 11.

Ill

We held in Marine Terminals v. Burnside Shipping Co., 394 U. S. 404, 415 (1969), that the vessel owes to the stevedore and his longshoremen employees the duty of exercising due care “under the circumstances.” This duty extends at least to 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, and to warning the stevedore of any hazards on the ship or with respect to its equipment that are known to the vessel or should be known to it in the exercise of reasonable care, that would likely be encountered by the stevedore in the course of his cargo operations and that are not known by the stevedore and would not be obvious to or anticipated by him if reasonably competent in the performance of his work. Id., at 416, n. 18. The shipowner thus has a duty with respect to the condition of the ship’s gear, equipment, tools, and work space to be used in the stevedoring operations; and if he fails at least to warn the stevedore of hidden danger which would have been known to him in the exercise of reasonable care, he has breached his duty and is liable if his negligence causes injury to a longshoreman. Petitioner concedes as much. Brief for Petitioner 20-21. It is also accepted that the vessel may be liable if it actively involves itself in the cargo operations and negligently injures a longshoreman or if it fails to exercise due care to avoid exposing longshoremen to harm from hazards they may encounter in areas, or from equipment, under the active control of the vessel during the stevedoring operation.

The parties, however, like the District Court and the Court of Appeals, are in sharp disagreement as' to the vessel’s duty under § 905 (b) once the stevedore’s cargo operations have begun. Scindia contends that the shipowner has no duty to supervise or inspect the stevedore’s cargo operations or to take reasonable care to discover dangerous conditions that develop or come to light during the loading or unloading. Scindia also submits that even if the vessel learns of the hazard, it has no duty to correct it and is entitled as a matter of law to rely on the stevedore to protect his employees from injury. This is true, Scindia argues, even though the hazard is an obviously defective ship’s winch being used by the stevedore and his longshoremen employees, and even if the winch was defective when the stevedore came aboard and the vessel is charged with knowledge of the condition. Respondents, on the other hand, defend the view of the Court of Appeals that the vessel is subject to a continuing duty to use reasonable care to discover dangerous conditions exposing longshoremen to unreasonable risk of harm and to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances to protect them. We are unable to agree wholly with either of these submissions.

Considering first the position of the Court of Appeals, we cannot agree that the vessel’s duty to the longshoreman requires the shipowner to inspect or supervise the stevedoring operation. Congress intended to make the vessel answerable for its own negligence and to terminate its automatic, faultless responsibility for conditions caused by the negligence or other defaults of the stevedore. Cases holding the vessel liable on the ground that it owed nondelegable duties to protect the longshoremen from injury were rejected. It would be inconsistent with the Act to hold, nevertheless, that the shipowner has a continuing duty to take reasonable steps to discover and correct dangerous conditions that develop during the loading or unloading process. Such an approach would repeatedly result in holding the shipowner solely liable for conditions that are attributable to the stevedore, rather than the ship. True, the liability would be cast in terms of negligence rather than unseaworthiness, but the result would be much the same. “[C]reation of a shipowner’s duty to oversee the stevedore’s activity and insure the safety of longshoremen would . . . saddle the shipowner with precisely the sort of nondelegable duty that Congress sought to eliminate by amending section 905 (b).” Hurst v. Triad Shipping Co., 554 F. 2d 1237, 1249-1250, n. 35 (CA3 1977); Evans v. S.S. “Campeche,” 639 F. 2d 848, 856 (CA2 1981).

As a general matter, the shipowner may rely on the stevedore to avoid exposing the longshoremen to unreasonable hazards. Section 41 of the Act, 33 U. S. C. § 941, requires the stevedore, the longshoremen’s employer, to provide a “reasonably safe” place to work and to take such safeguards with respect to equipment and working conditions as the Secretary of Labor may determine to be necessary to avoid injury to longshoremen. The ship is not the common employer of the longshoremen and owes no such statutory duty to them. Furthermore, as our cases indicate, the stevedore normally warrants to discharge his duties in a workmanlike manner; and although the 1972 Amendments relieved the stevedore of his duty to indemnify the shipowner for damages paid to longshoremen for injuries caused by the stevedore’s breach of warranty, they did not otherwise disturb the contractual undertaking of the stevedore nor the rightful expectation of the vessel that the stevedore would perform his task properly without supervision by the ship.

The approach of the indemnity cases in this Court, beginning with Ryan Stevedoring Co. v. Pan-Atlantic S.S. Corp., 350 U. S. 124 (1956), was that the stevedore was in the best position to avoid accidents during cargo operations and that the shipowner could rely on the stevedore’s warranty to perform competently. In Italia Societa v. Oregon Stevedoring Co., 376 U. S. 315 (1964), for example, the vessel was found liable for injuries to a longshoreman caused by an unsea-worthy condition arising when the stevedore, without negligence, supplied defective equipment used in handling the cargo. We held the vessel entitled to recover over against the stevedore, saying:

“Oregon, a specialist in stevedoring, was hired to load and unload the petitioner’s vessels and to supply the ordinary equipment necessary for these operations. The defective rope which created the condition of unseaworthiness on the vessel and rendered the shipowner liable to the stevedore’s employee was supplied by Oregon, and the stevedoring operations in the course of which the longshoreman was injured were in the hands of the employees of Oregon. Not only did the agreement between the shipowner place control of the operations on the stevedore company, but Oregon was also charged under the contract with the supervision of these operations. Although none of these factors affect the shipowner’s primary liability to the injured employee of Oregon, since its duty to supply a seaworthy vessel is strict and nondelegable, and extends to those who perform the unloading and loading portion of the ship’s work, Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U. S. 85, cf. Pope & Talbot v. Hawn, 346 U. S. 406, they demonstrate that Oregon was in a far better position than the shipowner to avoid the accident. The shipowner defers to the qualification of the stevedoring contractor in the selection and use of equipment and relies on the competency of the stevedore company.” Id., at 322-323.

The 1972 Amendments foreclosed indemnity of the shipowner by the stevedore in § 905 (b) cases; but they also rejected the notion of a nondelegable duty on the shipowner to provide a safe place to work and did not undermine the justifiable expectations of the vessel that the stevedore would perform with reasonable competence and see to the safety of the cargo operations.

We are of the view that absent contract provision, positive law, or custom to the contrary — none of which has been cited to us in this case — the shipowner has no general duty by way of supervision or inspection to exercise reasonable care to discover dangerous conditions that develop within the confines of the cargo operations that are assigned to the stevedore. The necessary consequence is that the shipowner is not liable to the longshoremen for injuries caused by dangers unknown to the owner and about which he had no duty to inform himself. This conclusion is plainly consistent with the congressional intent to foreclose the faultless liability of the shipowner based on a theory of unseaworthiness or nondelegable duty. The shipowner, within limits, is entitled to rely on the stevedore, and owes no duty to the longshoremen to inspect or supervise the cargo operations. To the extent that the judgment of the Court of Appeals rested on a contrary view, we disagree.

IV

We arrive at the more difficult and recurring issue involved in this case: What are the shipowner’s duties when he learns that an apparently dangerous condition exists or has developed in the cargo operation, which is known to the stevedore and which may cause injury to the longshoreman? Must the owner take some action? Scindia and the District Court would have it that the vessel is entitled to rely on the expertise and responsibility of the stevedore and is not liable for injuries caused by dangers known by or obvious to the stevedore, who, if he fails to take proper precautions, is necessarily the sole and proximate cause of the injury. There is arguable support for this position in our cases.

In Crumady v. The J. H. Fisser, 358 U. S. 423 (1959), a ship’s winch had been set by ship’s officers to shut off the current at twice the safe working load of the unloading gear. The gear parted when subjected to undue strain because of the- negligence of the stevedore. The Court held the ship unseaworthy. Consistent with past cases, the Court declared that the longshoremen’s protection against unseaworthiness “imposes a duty which the owner of the vessel cannot delegate,” a duty which, as to appliances, “does not end with supplying them; he must keep them in order.” The shipowner “is not relieved of these responsibilities by turning control of the loading or unloading of the ship over to a stevedoring company.” Id., at 427. The Court, nevertheless, permitted the ship to recover over from the stevedore “since the negligence of the stevedores . . . brought the unseaworthiness of the vessel into play . . . .” Id., at 429.

In Crumady, the Court declared that “those acting for the vessel owner” had adjusted the winch “in a way that made it unsafe and dangerous for the work at hand.” Id., at 427. It thus appeared that the vessel had at least been negligent, yet it was entitled to shift its entire liability to the stevedore because it was entitled to rely on the stevedore’s undertaking to perforin in a workmanlike manner. Arguably, Scindia should likewise be justified in expecting Seattle to perform its undertaking and should therefore have no duty or responsibility with respect to the ship’s winch, which, if defective, was obviously so and which the stevedore continued to use.

The court below rejected this position, holding that if the vessel should realize that the condition presents an unreasonable risk of harm, it is liable if it “fails to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances” to protect the longshoremen. The court did not suggest how to recognize an “unreasonable risk” of harm from an obvious danger or suggest what reasonable care under the circumstances might be.

The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, while disagreeing with the duty-to-inspect thesis of the Court of Appeals in the present case, has also rejected this position, ruling that although the shipowner is normally entitled to rely on the stevedore to guard against hazards to its employees, “there may be circumstances in which it would not be reasonable for the shipowner to assume that the stevedore will correct the problem.” Evans v. S.S. “Campeche ” 639 F. 2d, at 856. As that court sees it, mere knowledge of the danger would not be sufficient in itself to fasten such a duty on the shipowner, but if the shipowner should anticipate that the stevedore will not or cannot correct the danger and that the longshoremen cannot avoid it, then the shipowner’s duty is triggered to take steps, reasonable in the circumstances, to eliminate or neutralize the hazard. We are presently unprepared to agree that the shipowner has precisely the duty described by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, but for the reasons that follow we agree that there are circumstances in which the shipowner has a duty to act where the danger to longshoremen arises from the malfunctioning of the ship’s gear being used in the cargo operations.

On the facts posited here, for two days prior to the accident, it had been apparent to those working with the winch that this equipment was malfunctioning. Even so, whether it could be safely used or whether it posed an unreasonable risk of harm to Santos or other longshoremen was a matter of judgment committed to the stevedore in the first instance. The malfunctioning being obvious and Seattle having continued to use it, Scindia submits that if it was aware of the condition or was charged with knowledge of it, it was nevertheless entitled to assume that Seattle, the specialist in loading and unloading, considered the equipment reasonably safe and was entitled to rely on that judgment.

Yet it is quite possible, it seems to us, that Seattle’s judgment in this respect was so obviously improvident that Scindia, if it knew of the defect and that Seattle was continuing to use it, should have realized the winch presented an unreasonable risk of harm to the longshoremen, and that in such circumstances it had a duty to intervene and repair the ship’s winch. The same would be true if the defect existed from the outset and Scindia must be deemed to have been aware of its condition.

As we have indicated, the legal duties placed on the stevedore and the vessel’s justifiable expectations that those duties will be performed are relevant in determining whether the shipowner has breached its duty. The trial court, and where appropriate the jury, should thus be made aware of the scope of the stevedore’s duty under the positive law. But an equally necessary inquiry is whether the pertinent statutes, regulations, or custom place or assume a continuing duty on the vessel to repair defective ship’s gear being used by the stevedore in the cargo operation.

The statutory duty of the stevedore under § 941 to provide a safe place to work has been implemented by the Safety and Health Regulations for Longshoring. 29 CFR § 1918.1 et seq. (1980). Subpart F of these regulations, § 1918.51 et seq., deals with the use of the ship’s gear by the stevedore. Section 1918.51 (b) provides that “[a]ny component of cargo handling gear . . . which is visibly unsafe shall not be used until made safe.” In addition, § 1918.53, dealing with cargo winches, provides that “[a]ny defect or malfunction of winches shall be reported immediately to the officer in charge of the vessel,” § 1918.53 (a) (5); that in the case of electrical winches “[w]hen the electromagnetic or other service brake is unable to hold the load, the winch shall not be used,” § 1918.53 (c)(1); and that “[e]mployees shall not be permitted to tamper with or adjust electric control circuits,” § 1918.53 (c)(2). Even in the absence of other statutory or regulatory law placing on the shipowner the obligation to repair a defective winch, a possible inference from the provisions already described is that when a defective winch is discovered, it should not be repaired by the stevedore but should be reported to and repaired by the shipowner. If this is the case, the situation comes down to this: If Scindia was aware that the winch was malfunctioning to some degree, and if there was a jury issue as to whether it was so unsafe that the stevedore should have ceased using it, could the jury also have found that the winch was so clearly unsafe that Scindia should have intervened and stopped the loading operation until the winch was serviceable?

We raise these questions but do not answer them, since they are for the trial court in the first instance and since neither the trial nor appellate courts need deal with them unless there is sufficient evidence to submit to the jury either that the shipowner was aware of sufficient facts to conclude that the winch was not in proper order, or that the winch was defective when cargo operations began and that Scindia was chargeable with knowledge of its condition. The District Court concluded that there was no triable issue of fact as to whether the shipowner knew or should have known of the alleged condition of the winch. The Court of Appeals read the record quite differently, ruling that there was a disputed material fact, which the District Court should not itself have resolved, with respect to the shipowner’s actual or constructive knowledge of the condition of the winch. To the extent that this conclusion was based on the Court of Appeals’ erroneous view that the vessel should have known the facts because of its duty to inspect the stevedore’s cargo handling operation, it was infirm. But as we understand the opinion below, the Court of Appeals held that there was a triable issue as to whether the shipowner had actual knowledge of the failure in the winch’s braking mechanism or was chargeable with knowledge because the winch was defective from the outset. Based on our own examination of the record, we agree with the Court of Appeals in this respect and with its conclusion that the District Court erred in granting summary judgment. The case should be returned to the District Court and, if necessary, tried to a jury under appropriate instructions.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

So ordered.

The Chief Justice took no part in the decision of this case.

Justice Brennan,

with whom Justice Marshall and Justice Blackmun join, concurring.

My views are that under the 1972 Amendments: (1) a shipowner has a general duty to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances; (2) in exercising reasonable care, the shipowner must take reasonable steps to determine whether the ship’s equipment is safe before turning that equipment over to the stevedore; (3) the shipowner has a duty to inspect the equipment turned over to the stevedore or to supervise the stevedore if a custom, contract provision, law or regulation creates either of those duties; and (4) if the shipowner has actual knowledge that equipment in the control of the stevedore is in an unsafe condition, and a reasonable belief that the stevedore will not remedy that condition, the shipowner has a duty either to halt the stevedor-ing operation, to make the stevedore eliminate the unsafe condition, or to eliminate the unsafe condition itself.

Since I read the Court’s opinion to be consistent with these views, I join the Court’s opinion.

Justice Powell,

with whom Justice Rehnquist joins, concurring.

I join the Court’s opinion because I agree with its basic thrust — placing the primary burden on the stevedore for avoiding injuries caused by obvious hazards. I write only to emphasize the distinction between this approach and the general “reasonableness” standard adopted by the Ninth Circuit in this case.

Under the Court’s opinion, “the shipowner has no general duty by way of supervision or inspection to exercise reasonable care to discover dangerous conditions that develop within the confines of the cargo operations that are assigned to the stevedore.” Ante, at 172. In addition, the opinion makes clear that the shipowner has only a limited duty with respect to obvious hazards of which it is aware. Although the shipowner cannot rely in all cases on the judgment and primary responsibility of the stevedore concerning what conditions allow safe work to continue, safety is a “matter of judgment committed to the stevedore in the first instance.” Ante, at 175. Only where the judgment of the stevedore is “obviously improvident,” ibid., and this poor judgment either is known to the shipowner or reasonably should be anticipated under the circumstances, does the shipowner have a duty to intervene. As the opinion points out, the customs and regulations allocating responsibility for particular repairs are highly relevant to this inquiry.

The difficulty with a more general reasonableness standard like that adopted by the court below is that it fails to deal with the problems of allocating responsibility between the stevedore and the shipowner. It may be that it is “reasonable” for a shipowner to rely on the stevedore to discover and avoid most obvious hazards. But when, in a suit by a longshoreman, a jury is presented with the single question whether it was “reasonable” for the shipowner to fail to take action concerning a particular obvious hazard, the jury will be quite likely to find liability. If such an outcome were to become the norm, negligent stevedores would be receiving windfall recoveries in the form of reimbursement for the statutory benefit payments made to the injured longshoremen. This would decrease significantly the incentives toward safety of the party in the best position to prevent injuries, and undercut the primary responsibility of that party for ensuring safety.

       Pub. L. 92-57G, 86 Stat. 1251, amending 33 U. S. C. §§ 901-950.

       Section 933, referred to in § 905 (b), among other things provides that an injured longshoreman need not elect between compensation and suing a third party. ' It also specifies the relative rights of the longshoreman and his employer where the longshoreman accepts compensation and sues a third party or fails to do so within a specified time. Because its compensation- payments to Santos gave it an interest in Santos’ recovery, Seattle Stevedore Co. intervened and is a respondent here.

       The District Court’s opinion is reported at 1976 A. M. C. 2583 and is Appendix A to the petition for certiorari.

       See n. 9, infra.

       A pallet jack is a small, wheeled, cartlike vehicle with prongs on the front like a forklift with which the longshoremen in the hold would cart the pallet load to the wings of the hold where they would then remove the sacks and stow them by hand. Record 77.

       Restatement (Second) of Torts §343 provides:
      “§ 343. Dangerous Conditions Known to or Discoverable by Possessor
      “A possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm caused to his invitees by a condition on the land if, but only if, he
      “(a) knows or by the exercise of reasonable care would discover the condition, and should realize that it involves an unreasonable risk of harm to such invitees, and
      “(b) should expect that they will not discover or realize the danger, or will fail to protect themselves against it, and
      “(c) fails to exercise reasonable care to protect them against the danger.”
      Restatement (Second) of Torts §343A provides:
      “§ 343A. Known or Obvious Dangers
      “(1) A possessor of land is not liable to his invitees for physical harm caused to them by any activity or condition on the land whose danger is known or obvious to them, unless the possessor should anticipate the harm despite such knowledge or obviousness.
      “(2) In determining whether the possessor should anticipate harm from a known or obvious danger, the fact that the invitee is entitled to make use of public land, or of the facilities of a public utility, is a factor of importance indicating that the harm should be anticipated.”

       The District Court stated, 1976 A. M. C., at 2586, that “[p]laintiff does not controvert defendant’s claim that no one from the ship’s crew was ever informed of the winch’s condition prior to the accident” and further stated that if the winch was defective, it was a “condition [about] which the Court finds the shipowner did not know nor should it reasonably have been expected to know, given the exclusive control of the gear by the stevedores during the relevant time period.” Ibid. Seindia contended in any event that the winch was not defective but concedes that for present purposes the case should be judged on the assumption that it was.

       Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 (c) provides that judgment shall be entered in favor of the moving party “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”

       The Court of Appeals acknowledged that the Courts of Appeals for the Second, Fourth, and Fifth Circuits had relied on these sections in § 905 (b) suits. See, e. g., Canizzo v. Farrell Lines, Inc., 579 F. 2d 682 (CA2 1978); Gay v. Ocean Transport & Trading, Ltd., 546 F. 2d 1233 (CA5 1977); Anuszewski v. Dynamic Manners Corp., Panama, 540 F. 2d 757 (CA4 1976); Napoli v. Hellenic Lines, Ltd., 536 F. 2d 505 (CA2 1976). The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has recently reaffirmed its position. Evans v. S.S. “Campeche,” 639 F. 2d 848 (1981). On the other hand, the First and Third Circuits, like the Ninth Circuit, have held that these sections should not apply in § 905 (b) suits since they might bar a longshoreman from recovery because he was eontributorily negligent or because he voluntarily encountered a known or obvious risk. See Sarauw v. Oceanic Navigation Corp., 622 F. 2d 1168 (CA3 1980); Johnson v. A/S Ivarans Rederi, 613 F. 2d 334 (CA1 1980); Griffith v. Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel Corp., 610 F. 2d 116 (CA3 1979); Lawson v. United States, 605 F. 2d 448 (CA9 1979); Bachtel v. Mammoth Bulk Carriers, Ltd., 605 F. 2d 438 (CA9 1979); 598 F. 2d 480 (CA9 1979) (case below).

       The Court of Appeals referred to its standard as being a “reasonable care under the circumstances” approach. Id., at 486. It found support for this formulation in Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 358 U. S. 625 (1959). In that case, a visitor paying a social call on a member of the ship’s crew was injured when he fell on a defective stairway. The jury found the shipowner negligent and returned a verdict, which was set aside on appeal because the visitor had been a licensee rather' than an invitee. This Court reversed, preferring to adopt a single duty of “exercising reasonable care under the circumstances of each case,” rather than to incorporate in the maritime law the complexities of the common law of invitee and licensee. Id., at 632. The Kermarec. standard was reaffirmed in Marine Terminals v. Burnside Shipping Co., 394 U. S. 404 (1969), a case involving a suit by a stevedore against the shipowner. We have no quarrel with this standard. Inevitably, however, the rule will undergo refinement as it is applied to various categories of cases. Thus, in considering the reasonableness of Scindia's conduct under this standard, the Court of Appeals found it appropriate to inquire whether the shipowner had a continuing duty to inspect and held that it did. As will become evident, we have a different view: the shipowner's duty of reasonable care under the circumstances does not impose a continuing duty to inspect the cargo operations once the stevedore begins its work.

        Alaska S.S. Co. v. Petterson, 347 U. S. 396 (1954); Weyerhaeuser S.S. Co. v. Nacirema Operating Co., 355 U. S. 563 (1958); Crumady v. The J. H. Fisser, 358 U. S. 423 (1959); Waterman S.S. Corp. v. Dugan & McNamara, Inc., 364 U. S. 421 (1960); Italia Societa v. Oregon Stevedoring Co., 376 U. S. 315 (1964).
      In Usner v. Luckenbach Overseas Corp., 400 U. S. 494 (1971), however, we ruled that a single act of operational negligence by the stevedore did not render the vessel unseaworthy or subject the vessel to liability.

       See also the cases cited in n. 11, supra.

       Section 905 (b) itself negates the vessel's liability for unseaworthiness, and the Committee Reports state that the purpose of eliminating this remedy was to place the injured longshoreman “in the same position he would be if he were injured in non-maritime employment ashore . . . and not to endow him with any special maritime theory of liability or cause of action under whatever judicial nomenclature it may be called, such as ‘unseaworthiness’, ‘non-delegable duty’, or the like.” S. Rep. No. 92-1125, p. 10 (1972) (hereafter Rep.). (H. R. Rep. No. 92-1441 (1972) is in all relevant respects identical to the Senate Report.) The vessel was not to be liable on the theory of unseaworthiness for the acts or omissions of stevedores, or of the employees of stevedores, for the manner in which the stevedore performed its work, or for its defective gear or equipment. Rep., p. 10. Its liability was to be “based on its own negligence” and could be proved only if it was shown “to have acted or have failed to act in a negligent manner such as would render a land-based third party in non-maritime pursuits liable under similar circumstances.” Id., at 11.
      At the same time, the Committees observed that the statutory cause of action for negligence would “meet the objective of encouraging safety because the vessel would still be required to exercise the same care as a land-based person in providing a safe place to work.” Id., at 10. Nothing was intended “to derogate from the vessel’s responsibility to take appropriate corrective action where it knows or should have known about a dangerous condition” as long as the vessel was not “chargeable with the negligence of the stevedore or employees of the stevedore.” Id., at 10, 11.
      The Committees also anticipated that in § 905 (b) cases, as in other admiralty eases, the rule of comparative negligence would apply and the defense of assumption of risk would be barred. Furthermore, the Reports emphasized that the amendments were not intended to relieve any person from his duties and obligations under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.
      Otherwise, the definition of the vessel’s negligence and its resulting liability were left to be “resolved through the application of accepted principles of tort law and the ordinary process of litigation — just as they are in cases involving alleged negligence by land-based third parties.” Rep., p. 11. It was anticipated, however, that questions arising in § 905 (b) cases “shall be determined as a matter of Federal law.” Rep., p. 12.

       Because the legislative history suggests that the shipowner’s liability is to be judged by land-based standards, see n. 13, supra, it is urged that the District Court properly turned to and applied §§ 343 and 343A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. But the legislative history does not refer to the Restatement and also states that land-based principles of assumption of risk and contributory negligence are not to be applied in § 905 (b) cases. This strongly suggests, as Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 358 U. S. 625 (1959), indicated, that maritime negligence actions are not necessarily to be governed by principles applicable in nonmaritime contexts. Furthermore, since the lower courts are in disagreement not only as to the applicability of §§ 343 and 343A but also as to their import and meaning when applied in the maritime context, those sections, while not irrelevant, do not furnish sure guidance in cases such as this.

       “Thus a vessel shall not be liable in damages for acts or omissions of stevedores or employees of stevedores subject to this Act. Crumedy vs. The J. H. Fisser, 358 U. S. 423, Albanese vs. Matts, 382 U. S. 283, Skibinski vs. Waterman SS Corp., [360] F. 2d 539; for the manner or method in which stevedores or employees of stevedores subject to this Act perform their work, A. N. G. Stevedores vs. Ellerman Lines, 369 U. S. 355, Blassingill vs. Waterman SS Corp., 336 F. 2d 367; for gear or equipment of stevedores or employees of stevedores subject to this Act whether used aboard ship, or ashore, Alaska SS Co. vs. Peterson, 347 U. S. 396, Italia Societa vs. Oregon Stevedoring Co., 376 U. S. 315, or for other categories of unseaworthiness which have been judicially established. This listing of cases is not intended to reflect a judgment as to whether recovery on a particular actual setting could be predicated on the vessel’s negligence.” Rep., p. 10.

       Much is made of the Committees’ statement that nothing in the bill “is intended to derogate from the vessel’s responsibility to take appropriate corrective action where it knows or should have known about a dangerous condition.” Ibid. But the statement did not explain what the vessel’s “responsibility” is and what “appropriate” action might be, or when it “should have known” of the condition. The Committees did offer an example:
      “So, for example, where a longshoreman slips on an oil spill on a vessel’s deck and is injured, the proposed amendments to Section 5 would still permit an action against the vessel for negligence. To recover, he must establish that: 1) the vessel put the foreign substance on the deck, or knew that it was there, and willfully or negligently failed to remove it; or 2) the foreign substance had been on the deck for such a period of time that it should have been discovered and removed by the vessel in the exercise of reasonable care by the vessel under the circumstances.” Id., at 10-11.
      However, when the failure to remove the oil spill would be “willful” or “negligent” or what the exercise of reasonable care under the circumstances would require was not explicated except to say that the “vessel will not be chargeable with the negligence of the stevedore or employees of the stevedore.” Id., at 11.

       Title 33 U. S. C. § 941 provides in relevant part as follows:
      “(a) . . . Every employer shall furnish and maintain employment and places of employment which shall be reasonably safe for his employees in all employments covered by this ‘chapter and shall install, furnish, maintain and use such devices and safeguards with particular reference to equipment used by and working conditions established by such employers as the Secretary may determine by regulation or order to be reasonably necessary to protect the life, health, and- safety of such employees, and to render safe such employment and places of employment, and to prevent injury to his employees.”

       The Committees rejected the proposal that the vessel and the stevedore be considered joint employers of longshoremen. Rep., p. 8.

       See also the cases cited in n. 11, supra. Of course, in the situation presented in the Italia case, the faultless liability of the shipowner would no longer obtain under § 905 (b).

       Justice Harlan, joined by Justices Frankfurter and Whittaker, dissented, being of the view that the ship was not unseaworthy and that if it was, the ship was not entitled to indemnity if the stevedore merely brought into play the unseaworthy condition of the ship’s own equipment. Crumady was reaffirmed in Waterman S.S. Co. v. Dugan & McNamara, Inc., 364 U. S., at 423.

       The panel was divided. Judge Meskill wrote the principal opinion joined for the most part by Judge Friendly, who also wrote a concurring opinion. District Judge Bonsai, sitting by designation, dissented. The majority could not accept the notion that the shipowner had a 'continuing duty to inspect the cargo operations since “to so require would ‘saddle the shipowner with precisely the sort of nondelegable duty that Congress sought to eliminate by amending section 905 (b). Hurst v. Triad Shipping Co., supra, 554 F. 2d at 1249 n. 35.” 639 F. 2d, at 856. The majority also rejected the so-called “control test” which the court thought would, inconsistently with the statute, entirely relieve the shipowner from any liability for accidents occurring in the course of operations under the control of the stevedore. The majority's approach, which is considered consistent with § 343A of the Restatement and which it called the “reasonable anticipation standard,” would place a duty of care on the vessel when it would be unreasonable to assume the stevedore will deal with an apparent hazard — for example, “where the dangerous condition would be too difficult for the stevedore alone to remedy, or where the custom in the industry places the burden of acting on the shipowner, or where the ship affirmatively joins in the decision to continue despite the hazard.” 639 F. 2d, at 856. The court should endeavor “to reach a realistic conclusion concerning the shipowner’s reasonable anticipation.” Id., at 856-857.

       We agree with the Court of Appeals that the shipowner may not defend on the ground that Santos should have refused to continue working in face of an obviously dangerous winch which his employer, Seattle, was continuing to use. The District Court erred in ruling otherwise, since the defense of assumption of risk is unavailable in § 905 (b) litigation. See also Napoli v. Hellenic Lines, Ltd., 536 F. 2d, at 509.

       It may also be that the contract between the stevedore and the shipowner will have provisions specifically bearing on the dispute. The contract between Scindia and Seattle is not part of the record in this ease.

       Petitioner acknowledged in its brief that only the shipowner could have repaired the defective winch, Brief for Petitioner 24, but argued that even if notified of the defect, it would merely have had the opportunity, but not the duty, to repair. Tr. of Oral Arg. 10.

       The United States Coast Guard has issued regulations with respect to the gear and equipment of cargo ships. 46 CFR Ch. 1, Subchapter 1, Cargo and Miscellaneous Vessels (1980). For ships to which the regulations are applicable, the shipowner must obtain a certificate of inspection at stated intervals. There are detailed requirements for the testing of winches. There is provision for accepting the certificate of private testing organizations recognized by the Coast Guard, such as the International Cargo Gear Bureau, Inc., which has its own manual specifying necessary testing procedures. The regulations, however, do not appear to specify the respective duties of the vessel and the stevedore in situations such as we now have before us. Scindia asserts that the Coast Guard regulations place no continuing duty on the shipowner to inspect the ship’s equipment during cargo operations. Tr. of Oral Arg. 14. Also, the M/S Jalaratna appears to be an Indian ship and may not be covered by the regulations, which do not apply to “[a]ny vessel of a foreign nation signatory to the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea, 1960, and which has on board a current, valid safety equipment certificate.” 46 CFR § 90.05-1 (1980).
      We note with some interest that in affirming a jury verdict for a longshoreman in Irizarry v. Compania Maritime Navegacion Netumar, S. A., No. 79-7876 (CA2, May 22, 1980), cert, pending, No. 80-94, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit relied on the Joint Maritime Safety Code issued by the New York Shipping Association, Inc., the International Longshoremen’s Association, and the Port of New York Joint Safety Committee. The Code was prepared pursuant to the terms of the labor agreement between the shipping association and the longshoremen’s union and contains what is described as “the commonly agreed on practices for working together safely.” The provision of the Code relied on by the Court of Appeals states that “[t]he owner, master and officers of the vessel shall supply and maintain in safe condition for use all ship’s gear equipment, tools and work spaces which are to be used in stevedoring operations.”

       Of course, it has not been determined whether the winch was defective or if it was, when it became defective and whether the defect contributed to the accident. If the effective cause was a simple act of operational negligence by the crane operator or the hatch tender, the vessel would not be liable in any event. Cf. Usner v. Luckenbach Overseas Corp., 400 U. S. 494 (1971). The District Court apparently thought this conclusion was necessitated by the fact that the stevedore was in operational control and was necessarily the sole cause of the accident.

       In my view, the Restatement standard adopted by the Second, Fourth, and Fifth Circuits, see ante, at 162, n. 9, and discussed most recently in Evans v. S.S. “Campeche,” 639 F. 2d 848 (CA2 1981), is consistent with the plain intent of Congress to impose the primary responsibility on the stevedore. Although it is unnecessary in this case for the Court to adopt this standard fully, I do not understand our opinion to be inconsistent with it.

       Under 33 U. S. C. § 905 (b), the shipowner is liable in damages to the longshoreman if it was negligent, and it may not seek to recover any part of this liability from the stevedore. The longshoreman’s recovery is not reduced to reflect the negligence of the stevedore. Edmonds v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 443 U. S. 256 (1979). Under 33 U. S. C. § 933, the stevedore — even if concurrently negligent — receives reimbursement for its statutory benefit payments to the longshoreman, up to the full amount of those payments. See also Bloomer v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 445 U. S. 74 (1980) (stevedore’s lien is not reduced by its proportional share of the costs of litigating the negligence suit). As a result of this automatic reimbursement, there is a danger that “concurrently negligent stevedores will be insulated from the obligation to pay statutory workmen’s compensation benefits, and thus will have inadequate incentives to provide a safe working environment for their employees.” Edmonds, supra, at 274 (BlackmttN, J., dissenting). In cases involving obvious and avoidable hazards, this danger will be realized unless the shipowner’s liability is limited to the unusual case in which it should be anticipated that the stevedore will fail to act reasonably. Any more stringent, or less defined, rule of shipowner liability will skew the statutory scheme in .a way Congress could not have intended. Cf. Canizzo v. Farrell Lines, Inc., 579 F. 2d 682, 687-688 (CA2 1978) (Friendly, J., dissenting).


author: Justice White Justice Rehnquist, Justice Stevens,

text:
    ROSALES-LOPEZ v. UNITED STATES
    No. 79-6624.
    Argued January 12, 1981
    Decided April 21, 1981

      White, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Stewart, BlackmuN, and Powell, JJ., joined. RehN-quist, J., filed an opinion concurring in the result, in which Burger, C. J., joined, post, p. 194. SteveNS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BreNNAN and Marshall, JJ., joined, post, p. 195.

      John J. Cleary, by appointment of the Court, 449 U. S. 947, argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner.

      George W. Jones argued the cause pro hac vice for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General McCree, Assistant Attorney General Heymann, Deputy Solicitor General Frey, and John De Fue.

   Justice White

announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Justice Stewart, Justice Blackmun, and Justice Powell joined.

The question here is whether it was reversible error for a federal trial court in a criminal case to reject the defendant’s request that the court’s voir dire of prospective jurors inquire further into the possibility of racial or ethnic prejudice against the defendant.

I

Petitioner is of Mexican descent. In February 1979, he was tried before a jury in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California for his alleged participation in a plan by which three Mexican aliens were illegally brought into the country.

The Government’s evidence at trial described the following events. On the night of December 10, 1978, three aliens were led across the Mexican-American border and taken to a car, previously left for them on the American side. They drove to Imperial Beach, Cal., a town about eight miles inside the border. Early in the morning of December 11, they reached the home of Virginia Hendricks Bowling, where they were admitted into the garage of the house by petitioner. Bowling was an American citizen, apparently Caucasian, living in Imperial Beach with her 19-year-old daughter. Petitioner had been living with Bowling’s daughter in her mother’s house since July 1978.

Later in the morning, petitioner hid the three aliens and their guide in the trunk of a green Oldsmobile. Bowling drove the Oldsmobile north, through the San Clemente checkpoint, while petitioner followed in a grey Ford. After passing through the checkpoint, Bowling and petitioner exchanged cars. Petitioner proceeded to Los Angeles in the Oldsmobile and Bowling returned to Imperial Beach in the Ford. In Los Angeles, petitioner went to an apartment, which agents of the Immigration and Naturalization Service had had under surveillance for several weeks because they suspected that it was a drop site for illegal aliens. Upon arrival, the aliens were let out of the trunk and told to go into the apartment by petitioner. Shortly thereafter, petitioner was arrested when he left the apartment with one of the aliens.

At trial, the INS agents, Bowling, the three illegal aliens, and David Falcon-Zavala, another named principal in the smuggling arrangement who was arrested with petitioner, testified for the Government. Petitioner did not testify; his defense was principally to challenge the credibility of the Government witnesses. The jury convicted him of all the charges and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. 617 F. 2d 1349 (1980).

Prior to trial, petitioner’s counsel formally requested that he be allowed personally to voir dire the prospective members of the jury. At the same time, he filed a list of 26 questions that he requested the trial judge to ask, if the court denied his first motion. Among the questions submitted was one directed toward possible prejudice toward Mexicans:

“Would you consider the race or Mexican descent of Humberto Rosales-Lopez in your evaluation of this case? How would it affect you?”

As permitted by Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and pursuant to the practice in the Southern District of California, the trial judge conducted the voir dire himself. He asked about half of the questions submitted by petitioner. Although he did not ask any question directed specifically to possible racial or ethnic prejudice, he did ask a question directed to attitudes toward the substantive charges involved: “Do any of you have any feelings about the alien problem at all?” He subsequently rephrased this: “Do any of you have any particular feelings one way or the other about aliens or could you sit as a fair and impartial juror if you are called upon to do so?” App. 17-18. The judge began the voir dire with the following general statement to the panel:

“In order that this defendant shall have a fair and impartial jury to try the charges against him, it is necessary that we address certain questions to the panel to make sure that there are no underlying prejudices, there are no underlying reasons why you can’t sit as a fair and impartial juror if chosen to do so in this case.” Id., at 14.

He ended his general questioning with the following:

“Does any reason occur to anyone'of you why you could not sit in this case as a fair and impartial juror, any reason whatsoever?” Id., at 21.

Following the voir dire, defense counsel restated his request with respect to six of the submitted questions, including the one directed toward racial or ethnic prejudice. He argued at sidebar that under Aldridge v. United States, 283 U. S. 308 (1931), a federal court “must explore all racial antagonism against my client because he happens to be of Mexican descent.” App. 25. The judge declined to ask any further questions of the jury panel. Peremptory challenges were then exercised and the jury was sworn.

Petitioner appealed, unsuccessfully challenging the refusal of the trial judge to question the jurors about possible racial or ethnic bias. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit noted that there is

“[a] longstanding rule of criminal justice in the federal courts . . . that questions regarding possible racial prejudice should be put to the venire in prosecutions of minority defendants, at least where ‘special circumstances’ indicate that the defendant’s race may be a factor in the trial.” 617 F. 2d, at 1354.

The court noted that “[t]he extent of the federal rule is unclear.” Ibid. It concluded, however, that this case did not contain such “special circumstances.”

The Courts of Appeals have adopted conflicting rules as to when the failure to ask such questions will constitute reversible error. Some Circuits have adopted a per se rule, requiring reversal whenever the trial judge fails to ask a question on racial or ethnic prejudice requested by a defendant who is a member of a minority group. See United States v. Bowles, 574 P. 2d 970 (CA8 1978); United States v. Robinson, 485 P. 2d 1157 (CA3 1973); United States v. Carter, 440 P. 2d 1132 (CA6 1971); United States v. Gore, 435 P. 2d 1110 (CA4 1970); Frasier v. United States, 267 F. 2d 62 (CA1 1959). Other Circuits, including the Ninth, have rejected such a per se rule, holding that a trial judge is required to pose such a question only where there is some indication that the particular case is likely to have racial overtones or involve racial prejudice. See United States v. Polk, 550 F. 2d 1265 (CA10 1977); United States v. Perez-Martinez, 525 F. 2d 365 (CA9 1975). In light of this diversity of views, we granted certiorari. 449 U. S. 819.

II

Voir dire plays a critical function in assuring the criminal defendant that his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury will be honored. Without an adequate voir dire the trial judge’s responsibility to remove prospective jurors who will not be able impartially to follow the court’s instructions and evaluate the evidence cannot be fulfilled. See Connors v. United States, 158 U. S. 408, 413 (1895). Similarly, lack of adequate voir dire impairs the defendant’s right to exercise peremptory challenges where provided by statute or rule, as it is in the federal courts.

Despite its importance, the adequacy of voir dire is not easily subject to appellate review. The trial judge’s function at this point in the trial is not unlike that of the jurors later on in the trial. Both must' reach conclusions as to impartiality and credibility by relying on their own evaluations of demeanor evidence and of responses to questions. See Ristaino v. Ross, 424 U. S. 589, 595 (1976), quoting Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U. S. 723, 733 (1963) (Clark, J., dissenting). In neither instance can an appellate court easily second-guess the conclusions of the decisionmaker who heard and observed the witnesses.

Because the obligation to impanel an impartial jury lies in the first instance with the trial judge, and because he must rely largely on his immediate perceptions, federal judges have been accorded ample discretion in determining how best to conduct the voir dire. In Aldridge v. United States, 283 U. S. 308 (1931), the Court recognized the broad role of the trial court: “[T]he questions to the prospective jurors were put by the court, and the court had a broad discretion as to the questions to be asked.” Id., at 310. See also Ham v. South Carolina, 409 U. S. 524, 528 (1973) (recognizing “the traditionally broad discretion accorded to the trial judge in conducting voir dire . . .”). Furthermore, Rule 24 (a), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, provides that the trial court may decide to conduct the voir dire itself or may allow the parties to conduct it. If the court conducts it, the parties may “supplement the examination by such further inquiry as [the court] deems proper”; alternatively, the court may limit participation to the submission of additional questions, which the court must ask only “as it deems proper.”

There are, however, constitutional requirements with respect to questioning prospective jurors about racial or ethnic bias. The “special circumstances” under which the Constitution requires a question on racial prejudice were described in Ristaino v. Ross, supra, by contrasting the facts of that case with those in Ham v. South Carolina, supra, in which we held it reversible error for a state court to fail to ask such a question.

Ham involved a black defendant charged with a drug offense. His defense was that the law enforcement officers had “framed” him in retaliation for his active, and widely known, participation in civil rights activities. The critical factor present in Ham, but not present in Ristaino, was that racial issues were “inextricably bound up with the conduct of the trial,” and the consequent need, under all the circumstances, specifically to inquire into possible racial prejudice in order to assure an impartial jury. Ristaino, supra, at 596, 597. Although Ristaino involved an alleged criminal confrontation between a black assailant and a white victim, that fact pattern alone did not create a need of “constitutional dimensions” to question the jury concerning racial prejudice. 424 U. S., at 596, 597. There is no constitutional presumption of juror bias for or against members of any particular racial or ethnic groups. As Ristaino demonstrates, there is no per se constitutional rule in such circumstances requiring inquiry as to racial prejudice. Id., at 596, n. 8. Only when there are more substantial indications of the likelihood of racial or ethnic prejudice affecting the jurors in a particular case does the trial court’s denial of a defendant’s request to examine the jurors’ ability to deal impartially with this subject amount to an unconstitutional abuse of discretion.

Absent such circumstances, the Constitution leaves it to the trial court, and the judicial system within which that court operates, to determine the need for such questions. In the federal court system, we have indicated that under our supervisory authority over the federal courts, we would require that questions directed to the discovery of racial prejudice be asked in certain circumstances in which such an inquiry is not constitutionally mandated. Ristaino, supra, at 597, n. 9.

Determination of an appropriate nonconstitutional standard for the federal courts does not depend upon a comparison of the concrete costs and benefits that its application is likely to entail. These are likely to be slight: some delay in the trial versus the occasional discovery of an unqualified juror who would not otherwise be discovered. There is, however, a more significant conflict at issue here — one involving the appearance of justice in the federal courts. On the one hand, requiring an inquiry in every case is likely to create the impression “that justice in a court of law may turn upon the pigmentation of skin [or] the accident of birth.” Ristaino, supra, at 596, n. 8. Trial judges are understandably hesitant to introduce such a suggestion into their courtrooms. See Aldridge, supra, at 310; Ristaino, supra, at 591. Balanced against this, however, is the criminal defendant’s perception that avoiding the inquiry does not eliminate the problem, and that his trial is not the place in which to elevate appearance over reality.

We first confronted this conflict in Aldridge, supra, and what we said there remains true today:

“The argument is advanced on behalf of the Government that it would be detrimental to the administration of the law in the courts of the United States to allow questions to jurors as to racial or religious prejudices. We think that it would be far more injurious to permit it to be thought that persons entertaining a disqualifying prejudice were allowed to serve as jurors and that inquiries designed to elicit the fact of disqualification were barred. No surer way could be devised to bring the processes of justice into disrepute.” 283 U. S., at 314^315.

In our judgment, it is usually best to allow the defendant to resolve this conflict by making the determination of whether or not he would prefer to have the inquiry into racial or ethnic prejudice pursued. Failure to honor his request, however, will be reversible error only where the circumstances of the case indicate that there is a reasonable possibility that racial or ethnic prejudice might have influenced the jury.

In Ristaino, the Court indicated that under the circumstances of that case, a federal trial court would have been required to “propound appropriate questions designed to identify racial prejudice if requested by the defendant.” 424 U. S., at 597, n. 9. In Ristaino, the Court also made clear that the result reached in Aldridge, was based on this Court’s supervisory power over the federal courts. 424 U. S., at 598, n. 10. In Aldridge, which Ristaino embraced, the Court held that it was reversible error for a federal trial court to fail to inquire into racial prejudice in a case involving a black defendant accused of murdering a white policeman. The circumstances of both cases indicated that there was a “reasonable possibility” that racial prejudice would influence the jury.

Aldridge and Ristaino together, fairly imply that federal trial courts must make such an inquiry when requested by a defendant accused of a violent crime and where the defendant and the victim are members of different racial or ethnic groups. This supervisory rule is based upon and consistent with the “reasonable possibility standard” articulated above. It remains an unfortunate fact in our society that violent crimes perpetrated against members of other racial or ethnic groups often raise such a possibility. There may be other circumstances that suggest the need for such an inquiry, but the decision as to whether the total circumstances suggest a reasonable possibility that racial or ethnic prejudice will affect the jury remains primarily with the trial court, subject to case-by-case review by the appellate courts.

Ill

Evaluated against these standards, there was no reversible error in the voir dire afforded petitioner. At no point has petitioner argued that the matters at issue in his trial involved allegations of racial or ethnic prejudice: neither the Government’s case nor his defense involved any such allegations. There were, then, no “special circumstances” of constitutional dimension in this case. Neither did the circumstances of the case reveal a violent criminal act with a victim of a different racial or ethnic group. In fact, petitioner was accused of a victimless crime: aiding members of his own ethnic group to gain illegal entry into the United States. Petitioner, therefore, falls within that category of cases in which the trial court must determine if the external circumstances of the case indicate a reasonable possibility that racial or ethnic prejudice will influence the jury’s evaluation of the evidence. For two reasons, we do not believe that such a reasonable possibility has been demonstrated in this case.

First, the trial court reasonably determined that a juror’s prejudice toward aliens might affect his or her ability to serve impartially in this case. The court, therefore, questioned the prospective jurors as to their attitudes toward aliens. There can be no doubt that the jurors would have understood a question about aliens to at least include Mexican aliens. The trial court excused two jurors for cause, based on their responses to this question. Removing these jurors eliminated, we believe, any reasonable possibility that the remaining jurors would be influenced by an undisclosed racial prejudice toward Mexicans that would have been disclosed by further questioning.

Second, petitioner contends that “any latent racial antagonism” of the jurors toward Mexicans was likely to be exacerbated by Bowling’s testimony concerning the relationship between petitioner and her daughter. Petitioner, however, failed to make this argument to the trial court in support of his requested question. Even if he had, however, it would not create a reasonable possibility that the jury’s determination would be influenced by racial prejudice. Bowling’s testimony as to petitioner’s role in the particular smuggling operation involved in this trial was substantially corroborated by the other witnesses presented by the Government, including Falcon-Zavala and the three illegal aliens. Under the circumstances of this case, the racial or ethnic differences between the defendant and a key Government witnesss did not create a situation meeting the standard set out above. The judge was not, therefore, required to inquire further than he did.

Under these circumstances, we cannot hold that there was a reasonable possibility that racial or ethnic prejudice would affect the jury. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s request, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

So ordered.

Justice Rehnquist,

with whom The Chief Justice joins, concurring in the result.

I agree with the resqlt reached by the plurality today and with most of its reasoning. I cannot, however, embrace the language contained in the last paragraph of Part II of the opinion which may be perceived as creating a per se rule requiring reversal of any criminal conviction involving a “violent crime” between members of different racial or ethnic groups if the district court refused to voir dire on the issue of racial prejudice. I do not disagree in toto with that paragraph, but fear that its use of the term “violent crime” .and the term “different racial or ethnic groups” is apt to spawn new litigation over the meaning of these terms and whether the trial court properly assessed the possibility of racial or ethnic prejudice infecting the selection of the jury. It is undoubtedly true that such prejudice may occur in the case of a defendant accused of a violent crime where the defendant and victim are members of different racial or ethnic groups, and it is also undoubtedly true that there are circumstances other than these which may suggest to the trial judge the need for an inquiry into the possibility of prejudice. But knowing the contentiousness of our profession, the suggestion that a precise definition of “violent crime” or “different racial or ethnic groups” will ever be arrived at leaves me unwilling to lay down the flat rule which seems to be proposed in the last paragraph of Part II. I would think that in the case of “violent crimes” where the defendant and victims are members of "different racial or ethnic groups,” the decision as to inquiry on voir dire as to racial or ethnic prejudice “remains primarily with the trial court, subject to case-by-case review by the appellate courts.” See ante, at 192. In my view, it is inappropriate for us to decide that there is always a “reasonable possibility” of prejudice solely because the crime is “violent.” I would also not rule out the possibility of a finding of harmless error, but that may well be embraced in footnote 7 to the plurality’s opinion.

As can be seen, my differences with the plurality are not great, but we are beseeched on so many appeals to reverse a judgment for procedural reasons which cannot fairly have been said to play a part in the factfinding process that I would leave somewhat more to the trial court’s discretion than does the plurality, the decision as to whether or not questions on such as racial or ethnic prejudice should be asked on voir dire. We cannot, in the nature of things, always lay down “bright line” rules, but we should try to avoid definitions that do not define or clarify and hence invite litigation. It seems to me quite conceivable that a thoroughly competent and fairminded district court judge could conclude that the asking of such questions, or the devotion of a substantial amount of time to the inquiry, could well exacerbate whatever prejudice might exist without substantially aiding in exposing it.

Justice Stevens,

with whom Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall join, dissenting.

The question in this case is whether, in the conduct of the voir dire examination of prospective jurors in criminal prosecutions in the federal courts, the trial judge must, upon request, ask at least one question concerning possible prejudice against the minority group to which the defendant belongs. Settled law provides a simple answer to this question.

The plurality’s new answer to that question contains two parts: it holds that “federal trial courts must make such an inquiry when requested by a defendant accused of a violent crime and where the defendant and the victim are members of different racial or ethnic groups.” Ante, at 192. Because no such “special circumstances” are present in this case, the plurality affirms the judgment of the Court of Appeals. Ante, at 192-194. Heretofore, federal law has required that a racial or ethnic prejudice inquiry be made when requested by the defendant, regardless of the presence or absence of special circumstances indicating that there is a reasonable possibility that prejudice will influence the jury. In this case, because the general quéstions asked by the learned trial judge were inadequate, I respectfully dissent.

An impartial tribunal is'an indispensable element of a fair criminal trial. See In re Murchison, 349 U. S. 133, 136; Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U. S. 717, 722. Before any citizen may be permitted to sit in judgment on his peers, some inquiry into his potential bias is essential. Such bias can arise from two principal sources: a special reaction to the facts of the particular case, or a special prejudice against the individual defendant that is unrelated to the particular case. Much as we wish it were otherwise, we should acknowledge the fact that there are many potential jurors who harbor strong prejudices against all members of certain racial, religious, or ethnic groups for no reason other than hostility to the group as a whole. Even when there are no “special circumstances” connected with an alleged criminal transaction indicating an unusual risk of racial or other group bias, a member of the Nazi Party should not be allowed to sit in judgment on a Jewish defendant.

In 1931, in Aldridge v. United States, 283 U. S. 308, this Court addressed the problem of protecting criminal defendants in the federal courts from the possibility of racial or ethnic bias among prospective jurors. That case was not argued or decided in a vacuum. Rather, it followed a long line of state-court decisions requiring that prospective jurors be questioned about such potential prejudices. Aldridge itself involved the special circumstances that the crime at issue was murder, and that the defendant was black and the victim was a white police officer, but neither the reasoning in Chief Justice Hughes’ opinion for the Court, nor the reasoning in the state-court opinions from which he quoted at length, relied on such special circumstances. The character of the Aldridge holding is best explained by a quotation of both the text and the appended footnotes discussing the leading cases from Florida, Mississippi, North Carolina, Texas, and South Carolina:

“The propriety of such an inquiry has been generally recognized. In Pinder v. State, 27 Fla. 370; 8 So. 837, the counsel for the accused sought to have the jurors asked on their voir dire: 'Could you give the defendant, who is a negro, as fair and as impartial a trial as you could a white man, and give him the same advantage and protection as you would a white man upon the same evidence?' The Supreme Court of Florida held that the refusal of the court to allow the question was error and reversed the conviction. In Hill v. State, 112 Miss. 260; 72 So. 1003, the Supreme Court of Mississippi held that it was fatal error to refuse to permit a negro on trial for murder to put to prospective jurors on their voir dire the following question: 'Have you got any prejudice against the negro, as a negro, that would induce you to return a verdict on less or slighter evidence than you would return a verdict of guilty against a white man under the same circumstances?' The Supreme Court of North Carolina reversed the conviction of a negro because of the refusal of the trial judge to permit a juror to be asked if 'he believed he could, as a juror, do equal and impartial justice between the State and a colored man.’ State v. McAfee, 64 N. C. 339. See, also, Fendrick v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. 147; 45 S. W. 589; State v. Sanders, 103 S. C. 216; 88 S. E. 10.

283 U. S., at 311-313, and nn. 1, 2.

To avoid the risk that the opinion might be construed as applicable only to prejudice against members of the black race, Chief Justice Hughes added the following paragraph:

“The right to examine jurors on the voir dire as to the existence-of a disqualifying state of mind, has been upheld with respect to other raGes than the black race, and in relation .to religious and other prejudices of a serious character. Potter v. State, 86 Tex. Cr. 380, 384; 216 S. W. 886; People v. Reyes, 5 Cal. 347, 349; Watson v. Whitney, 23 Cal. 375, 379; People v. Car Soy, 57 Cal. 102; Horst v. Silverman, 20 Wash. 233, 234 ; 55 Pac. 52. In People v. Reyes, supra, Mexicans were charged with assault with intent to commit murder, and conviction was reversed because of the refusal to allow questions to determine whether a prospective juror was a member of the Know Nothing party, and whether he had taken any oath or obligation which resulted in prejudice, or whether independent of such an oath he entertained a prejudice, which would prevent him from giving the accused a fair trial.

283 U. S., at 313-314, and n. 3.

Then, toward the end of the Aldridge opinion, Chief Justice Hughes again made it clear that the Court’s holding was not limited to a risk of racial prejudice arising from the special circumstances of a particular case:

“The argument is advanced on behalf of the Government that it would be detrimental to the administration of the law in the courts of the United States to allow questions to jurors as to racial or religious prejudices. We think that it would be far more injurious to permit it to be thought that persons entertaining a disqualifying prejudice were allowed to serve as jurors and that inquiries designed to elicit the fact of disqualification were barred. No surer way could be devised to bring the processes of justice into disrepute.” Id., at 314-315.

In light of Chief Justice Hughes’ reasoning, it is not surprising that the overwhelming majority of Federal Circuit Judges who have confronted the question presented in this case have interpreted Aldridge as establishing a firm rule entitling a minority defendant to some inquiry of prospective jurors on voir dire about possible racial or ethnic prejudice unrelated to the specific facts of the case. I so read Al-dridge in 1973, and I think the message of the case is equally clear in 1981. The state-court decisions on which Chief Justice Hughes relied in Aldridge did not rest upon the presence of special circumstances indicating an unusual likelihood that racial or other prejudice would infect the jury venire. Therefore, although such special circumstances were present in Aldridge, that decision has a broader significance. I can “perceive no reason why Aldridge should be applied more restrictively than the precedent on which it rests.” United States v. Gore, 435 F. 2d 1110, 1112, (CA4 1970). Accordingly, unlike the plurality, I would join the majority of Federal Circuit Judges and decline to limit Aldridge to cases involving crimes of interracial violence.

In this case, I agree with the plurality’s view that the voir dire was adequate to determine whether any special circumstances might give rise to juror prejudice. The trial judge did inquire about prejudice related to the smuggling of aliens into California, and I agree that the possibility of prejudice resulting from the relationship between the defendant and the witness Bowling’s daughter was a matter that the trial judge could best evaluate. However, the voir dire was inadequate as a matter of law because it wholly ignored the risk that potential jurors in the Southern District of California might be prejudiced against the defendant simply because he is a person of Mexican descent. Because the defendant’s lawyer perceived a risk of such irrational prejudice in that District, his request for a specific question concerning it should have been granted.

I respectfully dissent.

       Petitioner was charged with one count of conspiracy to conceal, harbor and shield, and illegally transport aliens, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 371 and 8 U. S. C. § 1324; three counts of aiding and abetting the illegal transportation of aliens, in violation of 8 U. S. C. § 1324 (a) (2) and 18 U. S. C. §2, and three counts of concealing, harboring, and shielding aliens, in violation of 8 U. S. C. § 1324 (a) (3).

       The trial court asked the panel as a group questions concerning the following: knowledge of the participants in the trial; outside knowledge of the case; physical impairments that would interfere with their responsibilities as jurors; legal training; possible disagreement with the principle that a criminal defendant is presumed to be innocent. Each juror was asked to state some basic facts about himself or herself, including name, occupation, and spouse’s occupation.

       Two jurors were excused because of their responses to this question.

       The other five questions were:
      1. “Have you ever employed or have friends that have employed illegal aliens?”
      2. “Have you ever worked for the federal Government? If so, as what? How long?”
      3. “Have you ever been the victim of a crime?”
      4. “Have you ever sat as a juror in a civil or criminal case? What was the nature of the case and the verdict?”

        5. “Are you able to speak Spanish? If so, how well? Would you be willing to accept the interpreter’s translation?”

       On appeal, petitioner also challenged the failure of the trial court to provide him a free copy of the transcript of a suppression hearing, the sentencing procedure applied to him, the denial of an evidentiary hearing on possible prosecutorial vindictiveness, the trial court’s refusal to give an instruction on a lesser-included offense, the propriety of imposing consecutive sentences, and the constitutionality of 8 U. S. C. § 1324. ’ The Court of Appeals rejected all of these contentions.

       In Swain v. Alabama, 380 U. S. 202 (1965), we noted the connection between voir dire and the exercise of peremptory challenges: “The voir dire in American trials tends to be extensive and probing, operating as a predicate for the exercise of peremptories . . . .” Id., at 218-219. We also noted there that although there is no federal constitutional requirement that peremptory challenges be permitted, the challenge is widely used in federal and state courts pursuant to statute or rule and is deemed to be an important aspect of trial by jury. Id., at 219.

       Of course, the judge need not defer to a defendant’s request where there is no rational possibility of racial prejudice. But since the courts are seeking to assure the appearance and reality of a fair trial, if the defendant claims a meaningful ethnic difference between himself and the victim, his voir dire request should ordinarily be satisfied.

       We also note that the trial court asked generally whether there were any grounds which might occur to the jurors as to why they could not sit as “fair and impartial” jurors. Coupled with the question concerning aliens, there is little reason to believe that a juror who did not answer this general question would have answered affirmatively a question directed narrowly at racial prejudice.

       “For more than four decades, it has been the rule in federal courts that a trial court must inquire as to possible racial bias of the veniremen when the defendant is a member of a racial minority. Aldridge v. United States, 283 U. S. 308 . . . (1931).” United States v. Powers, 482 F. 2d 941, 944 (CA8 1973) (emphasis in original), cert, denied, 415 U. S. 923.

       A criminal defendant’s right to an impartial jury arises from both the Sixth Amendment and principles of due process. See Ristaino v. Ross, 424 U. S. 589, 595, n. 6.

       The fact that such prejudice may not be a pervasive influence in the particular community from which the jury is drawn or even in society at large does not make this concern any less serious. As Chief Justice Hughes explained in Aldridge v. United States, 283 U. S. 308, 314:
      “But the question is not ... as to the dominant sentiment of the community and the general absence of any disqualifying prejudice, but as to the bias of the particular jurors who are to try the accused. If in fact, sharing the general sentiment, they were found to be impartial, no harm would be done in permitting the question; but if any one of them was shown to entertain a prejudice which would preclude his rendering a fair verdict, a gross injustice would be perpetrated in allowing him to sit.”

      “1 In the Finder case, supra, the court said: ‘Though the question is not in express terms provided for in the statute above cited’ (McClellan’s Digest, § 10, p. 446) ‘yet it was a pertinent, and, as we think, proper question, to test fully the existence of bias or prejudice in the minds of the jurors. It sought tó elicit a fact that was of the most vital import to the defendant; and a fact, too, that if existent, was locked up entirely within the breasts of the jurors to whom the question was propounded; a knowledge of the existence of which could only be acquired by interrogating the juror himself. The answer to it if in the affirmative could have worked no harm to the juror or to anyone else, but would have done credit to the humanity and intelligence of the juror, and would have satisfactorily exhibited to the court and to the defendant his entire competency, so far as the element of bias or prejudice was involved. But, if the answer to it from the jurors had been in the negative, then, wo-bave no hesitancy in saying that it would have shown them to be wholly unfit and incompetent to sit upon the trial of a man of the negro race, whose right to a trial by a fair and impartial jury is as fully guaranteed to him under our constitution and laws, as to the whitest man in Christendom. And such incompeteney asserts itself with superadded force in such a case as this where the life or death of the defendant was the issue to tip the scale in the jury’s hands for adjustment.’

      "2 In that ease, the court said (at p. 340): ‘It is essential to the purity of trial by jury, that every juror shall be free from bias. If his mind has been poisoned by prejudice of any kind, whether resulting from reason or passion, he is unfit to sit on a jury. Here, his Honor refused to allow a proper question to be put to the juror, in order to test his qualifications. Suppose the question had been allowed, and the juror had answered, that the state of his feelings toward the colored race was such that he could not show equal and impartial justice between the State and the prisoner, especially in charges of this character, it is at once seen that he would have been grossly unfit to sit in the jury box.’ ”

      “3 The court in that case said (at p. 349): ‘As the juror best knows the condition of his own mind, no satisfactory conclusion can be arrived at, without resort to himself. Applying this test then, how is it possible to ascertain whether he is prejudiced or not, unless questions similar to the foregoing are propounded to him? . . .
      “ ‘Prejudice being a state of mind more frequently founded in passion than in reason, may exist with or without cause; and to ask a person whether he is prejudiced or not against a party, and (if the answer is affirmative), whether that prejudice is of such a character as would lead him to deny the party a fair trial, is not only the simplest method of ascertaining the state of his mind, but is, probably, the only sure method of fathoming his thoughts and feelings. If the person called had not taken an obligation which would prejudice him against foreigners in such a manner as to imperil their rights in a court of law, he could say so, and the question and answer would be harmless. If, upon the other hand, he had taken oaths, and was under obligations which influenced his mind and feelings in such a manner as to deny to a foreigner an impartial trial, he is grossly unfit to sit as a juror, and such facts should be known.’ ”

       See Frasier v. United States, 267 F. 2d 62, 66 (CA1 1959); King v. United States, 124 U. S. App. D. C. 138, 139, 362 F. 2d 968, 969 (1966); United States v. Gore, 435 F. 2d 1110, 1111-1113 (CA4 1970); United States v. Carter, 440 F. 2d 1132, 1134-1135 (CA6 1971); United States v. Bamberger, 456 F. 2d 1119, 1129 (CA3 1972), cert. denied sub nom. Crapps v. United States, 406 U. S. 969; United States v. Robinson, 466 F. 2d 780, 781-782 (CA7 1972); United States v. Booker, 480 F. 2d 1310, 1310-1311 (CA7 1973); United States v. Powers, 482 F. 2d 941, 944 (CA8 1973), cert. denied, 415 U. S. 923; United States v. Robinson, 485 F. 2d 1157, 1158-1160 (CA3 1973); United States v. Johnson, 527 F. 2d 1104, 1106-1107 (CA4 1975); United States v. Bell, 573 F. 2d 1040, 1042-1043 (CA8 1978); United States v. Bowles, 574 F. 2d 970, 971-973 (CA8 1978) ; United States v. Williams, 612 F. 2d 735, 736-737 (CA3 1979), cert. denied, 445 U. S. 934. Cf. Kuzniak v. Taylor Supply Co., 471 F. 2d 702, 703 (CA6 1972); United States v. Grant, 494 F. 2d 120, 122-123, and n. 6 (CA2 1974), cert. denied, 419 U. S. 849; United States v. Bear Runner, 502 F. 2d 908, 911-913 (CA8 1974).

       See United States v. Booker, supra.

       Nothing in Ristaino v. Ross, 424 U. S. 589, is inconsistent with this interpretation of Aldridge. Ristaino defined the circumstances under which a state trial court is constitutionally required to inquire into racial prejudice on voir dire. The Court in Ristaino expressly noted that it would require, under its supervisory power, that federal trial courts inquire into racial prejudice in cases in which such inquiry was not constitutionally required. 424 U. S., at 597, n. 9. The Court also noted that
        Aldridge was based on the supervisory power, not on the Federal Constitution. 424 U. S., at 598, n. 10. See United States v. Williams, supra; United States v. Bowles, supra.

       The Fourth Circuit, in United States v. Gore, supra, examined the state-court decisions cited in Aldridge and found that some involved crimes with no racial overtones whatsoever. See 435 F. 2d, at 1111-1112. Chief Justice Hughes’ discussion of these decisions in Aldridge indicates that that case established “a broad rule that in any criminal case an accused has a right to inquire whether racial prejudice precludes any juror from reaching a fair and impartial verdict.” 435 F. 2d, at 1111. See also King v. United States, supra, at 139, 362 F. 2d, at 969.

       It is, of course, clear that the trial judge’s duty to give such an instruction was not dependent on the phrasing of the particular questions submitted by defense counsel. See Aldridge, 283 U. S., at 311. It is equally clear that, although trial judges have broad discretion to formulate voir dire questions, the general question whether there was any reason “why you could not sit in this case as a fair and impartial juror,” see ante, at 186, is not an adequate substitute for a specific inquiry; if it were, trial judges might be well advised simply to ask that question and nothing else. See, e. g., United States v. Carter, supra, at 1134-1135; United States v. Robinson, supra, at 782.