TRIAL COURTS USE OF STATE CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE INSTEAD OF ADMIRALTY COMPARITIVE NEGLIGENCE HARMLESS IN LIGHT OF TRIAL COURT'S FINDING THAT SEAMAN'S INABILITY TO CLIMB OR HOLD ONTO A ROPE LADDER WAS THE SOLE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT.
ELGIN THOMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VANE LINESBUNKERING; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants-Appellees. ELGIN THOMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VANE LINES BUNKERING, Defendant-Appellant, and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 00-1997, No. 00-1998
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 16612
June 5, 2001, Argued
July 23, 2001, Decided
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: After a bench trial, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia entered judgment for defendants in plaintiff seaman's action under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.S. § 688 et seq., the Public Vessels Act, 46 U.S.C.S. § 781 et seq., the Suits in Admiralty Act, 46 U.S.C.S. § 741 et seq., and general maritime law against employer and United States for injuries from a fall from a rope ladder. Seaman appealed.
OVERVIEW: While offloading fuel oil from a United States Navy ship into the employer's tank barge at a naval base, the seaman had to use a rope ladder to exit the barge via the navy ship. The district court had found that the seaman's weight, fatigue, extra clothing, back brace, and sea bag, combined with dizziness because of prescribed drugs taken for osteoarthritis and degenerative disc disease, caused the accident. It was not the United States' negligence in the arrangement of the ladder. The appellate court noted that maritime law, with its comparative negligence standard, rather than Virginia law, with its contributory negligence standard, governed the case. Thus, the district court erred in finding that the seaman was contributorily negligent. The error, however, was harmless in view of the district court's express finding that the sole proximate cause of the fall was plaintiff's physical inability to climb or hold on to the ladder. Although a trier of fact could have resolved the issue differently, the appellate court could not hold that the district court clearly erred.
OUTCOME: The judgment of the district court was affirmed, although the district court erred in finding that the plaintiff seaman was contributorily negligent.
