SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF SHIPOWNER AND AGAINST SEAMAN ON JONES ACT NEGLIGENCE AND UNSEAWORTHINESS AFFIRMED...
SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF SHIPOWNER AND AGAINST SEAMAN ON JONES ACT NEGLIGENCE AND UNSEAWORTHINESS AFFIRMED WHERE SEAMAN WHO WAS INJURED WHEN HANDLING A STEEL CABLE COULD NOT SHOW ANY EVIDENCE OF SHIPOWNER'S NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO TRAIN SEAMAN OR ANY NOTICE OF A RISK
GENE A. RUTHERFORD, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LAKE MICHIGAN CONTRACTORS, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 00-1850
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 441
January 7, 2002, Filed
PRIOR HISTORY: On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan. 98-00769. Miles. 07-18-00.
Rutherford v. Lake Mich. Contrs., Inc., 132 F. Supp. 2d 592, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1631 (W.D. Mich. 2000)
DISPOSITION: Affirmed.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff injured worker appealed the decision from the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, which entered summary judgment in favor of defendant tugboat owner in the injured worker's suit for negligence under 46 U.S.C.S. § 688 of the Jones Act and under the doctrine of unseaworthiness. The tugboat owner alleged a lack of negligence.
OVERVIEW: The injured worker hurt his back when he was handling a steel cable. The appellate court affirmed. Under the Jones Act, there was a reduced standard of causation. After negligence was proven, a plaintiff only needed to show that a shipowner's negligence was the cause in whole or in part of the injuries. Even under the reduced standard, there was no evidence of the tugboat owner's negligence. There was no evidence that handling the steel cable was a foreseeable risk nor was there evidence of notice of any risk, if one existed. The appellate court rejected the lack of training argument since there was no evidence of the negligent failure to train. Any evidence on the weight of the cable or unfamiliarity with pulling techniques went to causation, not breach. The injured worker did not identify whether proper safety equipment was used, and the appellate court was not required to search the entire record for this information. Under the seaworthiness doctrine, a shipowner was not required to furnish an accident-free ship. Based on many of the same facts, there was no evidence of defective cables, equipment, or and insufficient number of workers.
OUTCOME: Summary judgment in favor of the tugboat owner was affirmed. Under either the Jones Act claim or the unseaworthiness claim there was insufficient evidence of the tugboat owner's negligence.
