SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED AGAINST JONES ACT SEAMAN WHERE SEAMAN DID NOT ESTABLISH MOVING HEAVY GARBAGE IS A TWO PERSON JOB AND CREW INCOMPETENCE
COURT FINDS THAT A CREW'S PERFORMANCE OF ITS WORK IN AN UNSAFE MANNER DOES NOT CONSTITUTE UNSEAWORTHINESS BUT, RATHER, JONES ACT NEGLIGENCE AND THAT SINCE INJURED SEAMAN HAD SEVERAL YEARS OF EXPERIENCE ON BOAT, HE WAS HELD TO BE 60% NEGLIGENT FOR WALKING UNDER A HEAVY SUSPENDED BOAT, THEREBY BARRING HIS CLAIM
MICHAEL B. HUSS, Plaintiff, v THE KING COMPANY, INC., and LAKE MICHIGAN CONTRACTORS, INC., Defendants.
No.1:98 cv 366
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN, SOUTHERN DIVISION
2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19293
November 14, 2001, Decided
November 14, 2001, Filed
DISPOSITION: [*1] Defendant's motion for summary judgment granted.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff employee sustained a back injury during his employment. He brought claims of breach of the warranty of seaworthiness under general maritime law and negligence under the Jones Act against defendant shipowner, his former employer. The shipowner moved for summary judgment.
OVERVIEW: The court concluded that the employee had an employment-related connection to a dredge, contributing to its function. His actions on the date in question were a part of that function. The employee therefore had seaman status within the meaning of the relevant law. However, the court found that the record was void of any evidence from which a jury could have concluded that the ship was unseaworthy because it was not equipped with a picking harness. Further, the employee had not shown that the vessel was unseaworthy because the crew was incompetent or inadequate. The court concluded that the crew's performance of its work in an unsafe manner was a breach of duty, and that the employee's injury due to the weight of the boat falling on him was a foreseeable result of the breach. The employee, who had several years of experience, had a duty to protect himself from harm, and the court concluded that he breached that duty by walking under the heavy, suspended boat. The employee's negligence, as well as that attributable to the shipowner, caused his injuries. The percentage of negligence attributable to the employee was 60 percent.
OUTCOME: The shipowner's motion for summary judgment was granted.
