SEAMAN FOUND 50% COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT FOR LIFTING AND CARRYING A VALVE WHILE ON LIGHT DUTY
CARROLL P. BOUDREAUX, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (US Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration); BAY SHIP MANAGEMENT INC, Defendants-Appellees. CARROLL P. BOUDREAUX, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee
No. 00-30705, No. 00-31358
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 615
January 15, 2002, Decided
PRIOR HISTORY: Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. 97-CV-1592-C. Helen Ginger Berrigan, US District Judge.
Boudreaux v. Unites States, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3933 (E.D. La. Mar. 16, 2000)
DISPOSITION: District court's attribution of 50% comparative negligence to Boudreaux and the court's finding that the OSPREY was not unseaworthy, affirmed. District court's allocation of an additional 20% negligence to Boudreaux for lifting the valve despite his prior back injury reversed. On remand, the court should restore to Boudreaux $59,941.17 representing the 20% of actual tort damages.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff seaman filed suit against defendants the United States and ship management company for injuries he sustained on the ship. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana found that the seaman was comparatively negligent, and reduced his damages. The seaman filed a motion to alter or amend, which was denied in part, and filed a suit for maintenance and cure, which was dismissed. The seaman appealed.
OVERVIEW: The seaman had injured his back while working on another ship, and was limited to light industrial work. The seaman was injured again at work when he and a pumpman had to carry a valve that weighed about 300 pounds. The seaman filed suit against the government and the ship management company under general maritime law and the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.S. app. § 688. The district court found that the government was negligent, but that the seaman was comparatively negligent to the extent of 70 percent, and reduced the seaman's actual damages accordingly. The seaman filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, which was partially granted and denied. The seaman filed a new lawsuit and sought maintenance and cure. The suit was dismissed. The two appeals were consolidated. The court found that the government failed to identify any record evidence that the seaman's decision to lift the object despite his back condition in any way caused his injuries, so the finding of an additional 20 percent negligence was clearly erroneous. There was no showing that the ship was not reasonably safe for the purposes for which it was used. The seaman had not reached maximum medical cure.
OUTCOME: The judgment of the district court was affirmed in part, and reversed and remanded in part.
