THE DUTY TO PROVIDE SEAMAN WITH SAFE PLACE TO WORK DID NOT EXTEND TO VESSEL OVER WHICH EMPLOYER EXERCISED NO CONTROL.

NICHOLAS MASTRODONATO, et al v. SEA MAR, INC., et al

Civil Action No. 99-2547 SECTION: "D"(3)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16568
November 9, 2000, Decided
November 9, 2000, Filed, Entered

OVERVIEW: Plaintiff, a seaman, was employed by defendant employer as a captain of a jack-up vessel. Plaintiff was transported from the jack-up vessel to the shore by the supply vessel. Plaintiff slipped and fell on the step on the supply vessel and sued co-defendant owner/operator of the supply vessel and defendant employer asserting negligence claims under maritime law and requested a trial by jury. Co-defendant filed a cross-claim against defendant employer, seeking contractual indemnity pursuant to defendant employer's charter agreement. Co-defendant also filed a third party demand against defendant employer's insurance company. Defendant employer and co-defendant both moved for partial summary judgment. The court found no evidence that defendant employer was negligent. The duty to provide plaintiff with a safe place to work did not extend to a vessel over which defendant employer exercised no control. Thus, plaintiff's Jones Act and unseaworthiness claims against defendant employer were dismissed. Defendant employer owed no contractual indemnity obligation to co-defendant under either the charter agreement or the insurance policy. defendant under either its charter agreement or insurance policy.
OUTCOME: Defendant's motion to strike jury demand was granted, as plaintiff's maritime negligence claim was dismissed. Co-defendant's cross-motion for partial summary judgment was denied.

Bookmark:      Bookmark THE%20DUTY%20TO%20PROVIDE%20SEAMAN%20WITH%20SAFE%20PLACE%20TO%20WORK%20DID%20NOT%20EXTEND%20TO%20VESSEL%20OVER%20WHICH%20EMPLOYER%20EXERCISED%20NO%20CONTROL.%20%20 at del.icio.us      Digg THE%20DUTY%20TO%20PROVIDE%20SEAMAN%20WITH%20SAFE%20PLACE%20TO%20WORK%20DID%20NOT%20EXTEND%20TO%20VESSEL%20OVER%20WHICH%20EMPLOYER%20EXERCISED%20NO%20CONTROL.%20%20 at Digg.com      Bookmark THE%20DUTY%20TO%20PROVIDE%20SEAMAN%20WITH%20SAFE%20PLACE%20TO%20WORK%20DID%20NOT%20EXTEND%20TO%20VESSEL%20OVER%20WHICH%20EMPLOYER%20EXERCISED%20NO%20CONTROL.%20%20 at Spurl.net      Bookmark THE%20DUTY%20TO%20PROVIDE%20SEAMAN%20WITH%20SAFE%20PLACE%20TO%20WORK%20DID%20NOT%20EXTEND%20TO%20VESSEL%20OVER%20WHICH%20EMPLOYER%20EXERCISED%20NO%20CONTROL.%20%20 at Simpy.com      Bookmark THE%20DUTY%20TO%20PROVIDE%20SEAMAN%20WITH%20SAFE%20PLACE%20TO%20WORK%20DID%20NOT%20EXTEND%20TO%20VESSEL%20OVER%20WHICH%20EMPLOYER%20EXERCISED%20NO%20CONTROL.%20%20 at NewsVine      Blink this THE%20DUTY%20TO%20PROVIDE%20SEAMAN%20WITH%20SAFE%20PLACE%20TO%20WORK%20DID%20NOT%20EXTEND%20TO%20VESSEL%20OVER%20WHICH%20EMPLOYER%20EXERCISED%20NO%20CONTROL.%20%20 at blinklist.com      Bookmark THE%20DUTY%20TO%20PROVIDE%20SEAMAN%20WITH%20SAFE%20PLACE%20TO%20WORK%20DID%20NOT%20EXTEND%20TO%20VESSEL%20OVER%20WHICH%20EMPLOYER%20EXERCISED%20NO%20CONTROL.%20%20 at Furl.net      Bookmark THE%20DUTY%20TO%20PROVIDE%20SEAMAN%20WITH%20SAFE%20PLACE%20TO%20WORK%20DID%20NOT%20EXTEND%20TO%20VESSEL%20OVER%20WHICH%20EMPLOYER%20EXERCISED%20NO%20CONTROL.%20%20 at reddit.com      Fark THE%20DUTY%20TO%20PROVIDE%20SEAMAN%20WITH%20SAFE%20PLACE%20TO%20WORK%20DID%20NOT%20EXTEND%20TO%20VESSEL%20OVER%20WHICH%20EMPLOYER%20EXERCISED%20NO%20CONTROL.%20%20 at Fark.com      Bookmark THE%20DUTY%20TO%20PROVIDE%20SEAMAN%20WITH%20SAFE%20PLACE%20TO%20WORK%20DID%20NOT%20EXTEND%20TO%20VESSEL%20OVER%20WHICH%20EMPLOYER%20EXERCISED%20NO%20CONTROL.%20%20 at Yahoo! MyWeb