Summary Judgment In Favor Of Ship Owner Reversed Where Seaman Was Injured By Slipping On Engine Room Floor Made Wet By Rain Water Coming In Through Open Hatches And Expert Witness Opines That The Hatches Should Not Have Been Left Open.
TEDDY CAMPBELL VERSUS HIGMAN BARGE LINES, INC.
2002-0937
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, THIRD CIRCUIT
2002-0937 (La.App. 3 Cir, 02/05/03); 838 So. 2d 80; 2003 La. App. LEXIS 194
February 5, 2003, Rendered
PRIOR HISTORY: APPEAL FROM THE FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO. 2001-972. HONORABLE PATRICIA MINALDI, DISTRICT JUDGE.
DISPOSITION: REVERSED AND REMANDED.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff, an employee of defendant barge corporation filed a maritime action following a work-related injury that occurred aboard a barge, in the Fourteenth Judicial District, Parish of Calcasieu (Louisiana). The barge corporation moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion. The employee appealed.
OVERVIEW: The accident occurred when the employee was instructed to change the oil in the barge engines. He alleged that when he was down in the engine room, with the hatches open above, the weather turned to rain dampening the floor below and he slipped on the wet floor injuring his back. He sought recovery related to what he alleged was a permanent injury, alleging the barge was unseaworthy and the barge corporation was negligent because the hatches were left open. He sought recovery under the saving to suitors clause, 28 U.S.C.S. § 1333, the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.S. § 688(a) and general maritime law. He argued genuine issues of material fact existed regarding unseaworthiness and Jones Act negligence and maintenance and cure issues. The employee's expert's opinion created genuine issues of material fact as to whether the hatches should have been open. The lower court erred in failing to find genuine issues of material fact created by the inferences reasonably drawn from the expert's affidavit. The appellate court concluded that summary judgment was inappropriate on the negligence question and on the issues of maintenance and cure.
OUTCOME: The judgment was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings.
