Directed Verdict Denying Seaman's Claim For Failure To Properly Treat Reversed...
Directed Verdict Denying Seaman's Claim For Failure To Properly Treat Reversed - Court Holds That The Law Places A Greater Obligation On Seaman's Employer To Provide For The Welfare Of A Crew Member Than The Law Places On The Crew Member To Provide For His Own Welfare.
JANINE VAN MILL, Appellant, v. BAY DATA, INC., Appellee.
CASE NO. 4D01-131 COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 8757; 27 Fla. L. Weekly D 1479 June 26, 2002, Opinion Filed
PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; J. Leonard Fleet, Judge; L.T. Case No. 97-9726 08.
DISPOSITION: REVERSED AND REMANDED.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: The Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida, entered a directed verdict on appellant employee's failure to treat claim and a jury found in favor of appellee employer on her negligence and unseaworthiness claim. The appeal followed.
OVERVIEW: The employee challenged the judgment against her on the issue of whether the trial court erred in directing a verdict in favor of the employer on her claim for failure to properly treat under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.S. § 688. The court of appeals held that an error occurred. Although there was a factual dispute as to when either the captain or the first mate was made aware of the employee's injury, there was no dispute that once the captain learned of it, he accompanied the employee to the hospital and initial doctor visit and, by calling his vice-president, set in motion the process of relieving the employee of her duties. The employee insisted on remaining on the ship, continuing to perform her job, and completing the tour. Upon arriving back in Fort Lauderdale, she delayed seeking follow-up medical care and even agreed to do additional work on the boat during the off-season. Despite all of the evidence suggesting that the employee declined the captain's offers of assistance, ignored doctor's orders, and contributed to her injury, the law placed a greater obligation on the captain to provide for crew members' welfare than it did on the crew members themselves.
OUTCOME: The judgment was reversed and the case was remanded.
