A SEAMAN MAY NOT BE HELD CONTRIBUTORILY NEGLIGENT FOR CARRYING OUT ORDERS THAT RESULT IN INJURY , EVEN IF THE SEAMAN RECOGNIZES POSSIBLE DANGER AND DOES NOT DELAY TO CONSIDER A SAFER ALTERNATIVE
JOHN SIMEONOFF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TODD HINER and CLAREHINER, in personam and the F/V SAGA, Defendants-Appellees.
Case Number: 99-35910
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 8518; 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Service 3621;2001 Daily Journal DAR 4461
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: John Simeonoff ("Simeonoff") injured his foot while crab fishing on a commercial vessel, the F/V SAGA ("SAGA"). Simeonoff brought a claim pursuant to the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 688 et seq., and general maritime law against the SAGA and ship -owners, Clare and Todd Hiner ("Hiners") claiming negligence and unseaworthiness. After a bench trial, the district court found the SAGA and the Hiners ("Appellees") seventy percent negligent and Simeonoff thirty percent negligent. The court found $163,500 total damages and, reducing that by thirty percent, awarded[*2] $114,450 to Simeonoff.
OVERVIEW: Appellant argued that the district court erred (1) in finding appellant contributorily negligent, (2) in issuing unreviewable damages findings, (3) by awarding insufficient non-economic damages, and (4) by failing to award prejudgment interest. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's judgment. As to appellant's first argument, the court found that appellant could not be held contributorily negligent for responding to an urgent, yet general, call to the vessel's crew for assistance; therefore, the district court clearly erred by reducing appellant's damages based on a finding of contributory negligence. As to the second argument, the district court's findings of fact were adequately detailed to permit meaningful appellate review of any substantive challenge to the awards. As to the third argument, the court found that the non-economic damages awards were not clearly erroneous in light of the record and the district court's factual findings. The court finally found that it should remand on the issue of prejudgment interest, so the district court could articulate its reasons for denying that interest or to reconsider the issue.
OUTCOME: District court's judgment was affirmed and reversed in part. The court found that the district court erred in finding appellant contributorily negligent, and also remanded on the issue of prejudgment interest. However, the court found that the district court's findings as to damages were sufficiently specific, and that the non-economic damages awards were not clearly erroneous.
When given any order, a seaman might be aware of potential injury if the order is followed, but reasonably might sacrifice personal safety for the good of the ship or crew. An order given from superior to seaman on the open sea should constitute the result of the superior's consideration of risk to the seaman balanced against the value of the task to the safety and mission of all. It is more reasonable for a seaman to follow an order without assessing alternatives than to weigh alternatives beyond the immediate order. To assess alternatives is to second guess a superior's assessment of the situation. Disruption of the chain of command at sea, and delays by seamen in executing orders, may imperil crew and vessel.
