With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". this motion that no warning was given. The question before the Court is whether on this evidence, a finding of vessel negligence may be sustained. Since the 1972 amendment of Section 5(b) of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, liability may no longer be premised on unseaworthy conditions but requires proof of negligence by the vessel. 33 U.S.C. § 905(b). In determining whether negligence has been established, the federal courts look to uniform land-based principles. See, e. g., Hurst v. Triad Shipping Co., 554 F.2d 1237 (3rd Cir. 1977). The courts have been vigilant in guarding against any expansion of vessel liability which might restore the situation the 1972 amendment was intended to cure. See, e. g., Wescott v. Impresas Armadoras, 564 F.2d 875 (9th Cir. 1977) (<HOLDING>). It is important at the outset to define the

A: holding that the trial court erred in refusing to grant the vessels motion for directed verdict and judgment n o v where a longshoreman was injured while knowingly engaged in loading a vessel in a dangerous manner
B: holding a directed verdict motion stating specific grounds is a prerequisite for a subsequent motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict
C: holding that a posttrial motion is not required after a grant of a directed verdict
D: holding defendants failure to file motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict did not prevent district court from granting motion for directed verdict for which court reserved decision
A.