Louisiana Trial Court Finds That Seaman Who Slipped And Fell While Walking Down A Ship's Stairwell While Carrying Items In Each Hand...
Louisiana Trial Court Finds That Seaman Who Slipped And Fell While Walking Down A Ship's Stairwell While Carrying Items In Each Hand Against The Employer's Written Policy Was The Sole Cause Of His Accident And Denies His Claims For Jones Act Negligence And Unseaworthiness.
SADAT MUHAMMAD VERSUS DIAMOND OFFSHORE COMPANY
2002-0172
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, THIRD CIRCUIT
2002-0172 (La.App. 3 Cir, 07/10/02); 2002 La. App. LEXIS 2340
July 10, 2002, Rendered
PRIOR HISTORY: APPEAL FROM THE SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT. PARISH OF IBERIA, NUMBER 86,273. HONORABLE WILLIAM D. HUNTER.
DISPOSITION: Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff seaman filed suit against defendant employer, seeking damages for injuries he sustained, pursuant to the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.S. § 688, and the general maritime law claim of unseaworthiness. The Sixteenth Judicial District Court, Iberia Parish, Louisiana, found that the seaman failed to prove the employer was negligent and denied his claim of unseaworthiness. The seaman appealed.
OVERVIEW: On review, the appellate court found that the seamen slipped and fell while walking down a ship's stairwell while carrying items in each hand, against the employer's written policy. The trial court did not err in finding the employee was the sole cause of his accident; thus, denial of his Jones Act claim was proper. As the trial court was presented with contradictory evidence, the appellate court could not say that the trial court erred in denying the employee damages based on his general maritime law claim of unseaworthiness. Although the seaman testified that the employees were instructed to clean the rig, because personnel were arriving for a visit, the appellate court did not find that this was the type of diverting circumstance that would absolve the seaman under the momentary forgetfulness doctrine. The future cure award was improper, and the trial court erred in awarding attorney fees based on its finding that the employer improperly withheld maintenance and cure benefits, as the record revealed no instance in which the employer acted in a willful, callous, or persistent manner.
OUTCOME: The awards of future cure and attorney fees were reversed; the remainder of the judgment was affirmed.
