COURT AFFIRMS JURY VERDICT FOR SHIPOWNER ON UNSEAWORTHINESS WHERE AN ENGINE SURGE CAUSED THE CAPTAIN OF THE VESSEL TO FALL OUT OF THE VESSEL AND SUFFER INJURIES...
COURT AFFIRMS JURY VERDICT FOR SHIPOWNER ON UNSEAWORTHINESS WHERE AN ENGINE SURGE CAUSED THE CAPTAIN OF THE VESSEL TO FALL OUT OF THE VESSEL AND SUFFER INJURIES AND, AT TRIAL, THE COURT INSTRUCTED THE JURY THAT THE RELEVANT TIME OF UNSEAWORTHINESS TO CONSIDER WAS THE TIME SURROUNDING THE ACCIDENT AND LEADING UP TO THE CAPTAIN BEING HURT
ROBERT F. GIFFORD, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. AMERICAN CANADIAN CARIBBEAN LINE, INC., Defendant, Appellee.
No. 00-1688
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 584
January 10, 2002, Decided
PRIOR HISTORY: APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. Hon. Rya W. Zobel, U.S. District Judge.
DISPOSITION: Affirmed.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff captain of a cruise ship sued defendant ship owner, alleging inter alia that the unseaworthiness of the ship's rescue boat caused the captain to fall out of the boat and suffer injuries. The captain appealed the judgment in favor of the owner, entered on a jury verdict in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, contending that the jury was improperly instructed.
OVERVIEW: The captain asserted that engine problems caused the rescue boat to operate intermittently, and that an engine surge caused the captain to fall out of the boat, after which he suffered severe injuries from the boat's propeller. During deliberations, the jury requested clarification concerning the time at which they were to determine the seaworthiness of the boat. The district court responded that the relevant time was the time surrounding the accident and leading up to the captain being hurt, but then directed the jury to focus on the time when the captain was hurt. The appellate court held that the jury was properly and repeatedly instructed that they were to determine whether the unseaworthiness of the boat was a substantial direct cause of the captain's injuries, and the isolated reference to the time when the injury occurred was insufficient to lead the jury to believe that unseaworthiness at the time of the fall was insufficient to establish causation. The one remark, taken in the context of the instructions as a whole, thus did not have a tendency to confuse or mislead the jury.
OUTCOME: The judgment in favor of the owner was affirmed.
