Under the General Maritime Law of comparative negligence, should a finding of "open and obvious" act as a complete bar to recovery or merely serve as a factor to be weighed in apportioning fault? At present, there is a split in the federal circuits on this important issue, and it is imperative for this Honorable Court to resolve the conflict to maintain uniformity in federal maritime law.

Whether a finding of 'open and obvious' should act as a complete bar to recovery or merely a factor in apportioning fault under general maritime law