Summary Judgment Granted For Employer On Claim For Jones Act Negligence For Injury Sustained In Port When Seaman Was Running A Personal Errand...
Summary Judgment Granted For Employer On Claim For Jones Act Negligence For Injury Sustained In Port When Seaman Was Running A Personal Errand And Summary Judgment Denied As To Maintenance And Cure Claim Where Triable Issue Remains As To Whether Seaman Was Acting In The Scope Of His Employment When He Was Injured.
EDWIN V. CALLBREATH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee.
No. 00-35478
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 16339
July 8, 2002, Argued and Submitted, Seattle, Washington
August 8, 2002, Filed
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant crewmember aboard a ship owned by appellee the United States that was docked at a port facility was injured upon returning from a personal errand. The crewmember sued the government for negligence under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.S. app. § 688(a), as well as for maintenance and cure. The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted the government's motion for summary judgment. The crewmember appealed.
OVERVIEW: The crewmember was injured on railroad tracks that were adjacent to the port facility where his ship was docked. The district court granted summary judgment to the government on the ground that the crewmember was not within the scope of his employment when the accident occurred. The appellate court affirmed the grant of summary judgment on the claim under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.S. app. § 688(a), because the crewmember adduced no evidence of employer negligence. Even construing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the crewmember, he could not prove that the government had any duty to provide for his safe passage across the railroad tracks, which were not under its direct control. Because there was a triable jury question as to whether the crewmember was acting within the scope of his employment while returning to ship on the night of the accident, the district court's determination to the contrary on the maintenance and cure claim was in error. As maintenance and cure was in no sense predicated on the fault or negligence of the ship owner, the absence of negligence on the government's part was not sufficient to deny recovery at the summary judgment stage.
OUTCOME: The district court's order which granted the government's motion for summary judgment was affirmed as to the Jones Act claim, but was reversed as to the claim for maintenance and cure, and was remanded for further proceedings. Costs on appeal were awarded to the crewmember.
