SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY FOR JONES ACT SEAMAN GRANTED AGAINST EMPLOYER WHEN PLATFORM ABOARD VESSEL COLLAPSED - NO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE DESPITE SEAMAN'S DUTY, AS LEAD OPERATOR, TO INSPECT, MAINTAIN, AND REPAIR EQUIPMENT
JIM KLINGENBERG, Plaintiff, v. PERE MARQUETTE SHIPPING, Defendant.
File No. 1:01-CV-90
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN, SOUTHERN DIVISION
2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10095
May 28, 2002, Decided
May 28, 2002, Filed
DISPOSITION: Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to liability GRANTED. JUDGMENT AS TO LIABILITY ONLY entered against Defendant Pere Marquette Shipping.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff seaman brought a negligence claim under the Jones Act of 1920, codified at 46 U.S.C.S. app. § 688, and an unseaworthiness claim under admiralty law against his employer. The seaman moved for summary judgment as to liability only.
OVERVIEW: The seaman was lead operator on the employer's vessel that hauled cargo on the Great Lakes. He was responsible for loading and unloading, which was by means of a conveyor cat that was accessed by a catwalk. A crew member/welder fabricated a platform to facilitate such access. The seaman was injured due to the employer's negligence when the platform collapsed under him when all of its welds failed, because the conveyor vibrated so much as to cause welds to fail on various points on the machine. The evidence was uncontroverted that the vessel was unseaworthy when the seaman was injured, as the platform failed to fulfill its intended purposes during ordinary use. The employer alleged that the seaman was comparatively negligent. There was no evidence that he was negligent for using the platform when he fell, but the employer alleged negligence for the seaman's failure to fulfill his alleged sole responsibility as lead operator to inspect, maintain, and repair the equipment. The court assumed this was so, but noted that this did not mean that a failure in equipment was due to his negligence, and the employer produced no evidence that the seaman failed to adequately inspect.
OUTCOME: The court granted the seaman's motion for summary judgment as to liability, and entered judgment against the employer as to liability only.
