The judgment of the district court is affirmed for the following reasons:

1. The court applied the correct standard of reasonable care for the shipowner. It was not a failure to warn of an open and obvious danger. Nor was it for product liability. Nor was it some different standard applied by state law peculiar to slip and fall cases.

2. The court found that Floyd failed to exercise reasonable care in fishing while standing near an open hole. The court found the shipowner failed to exercise reasonable care in allowing Floyd to fish near the open hole under all the circumstances, including prior experience when other fishermen had stepped into it. The evidence supported the court’s finding.

AFFIRMED.