A Single Damage Award For A Seaman For Jones Act Negligence And Unseaworthiness Is Reversed Where The Pennsylvania Rule Applies Because The Court Is Precluded From Reducing The Award Apportioned To The Jones Act Negligence For Comparative Negligence Where
MARINE SOLUTION SERVICES, INC., an Alaska Corporation,Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. THOMAS HORTON, Appellee/Cross-Appellant. THOMASHORTON, Appellant, v. STEVE ADAMS, Appellee.
Supreme Court No. S-9916, No. 5691, Supreme Court No. S-9935
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA
2003 Alas. LEXIS 41
May 16, 2003, Decided
DISPOSITION: Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: The Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, granted judgment in favor of appellee company president after he sued appellant marine services company for unseaworthiness under traditional maritime law and for negligence under the Jones Act, after the president was injured while moving a dock. Both parties appealed.
OVERVIEW: The company appealed several of the jury instructions, focusing on whether the president was an employee and seaman entitled to a remedy under the Jones Act and whether The Pennsylvania rule applied. The appellate court noted that the company was an Alaska corporation that was owner of the vessels at the time of the accident, such that the president could sue in tort the corporation for which he worked. The Pennsylvania Rule applied to personal injury and Jones Act cases. The jury was properly instructed concerning violations of two regulations where the failure to maintain a lookout by the tugboat captain could reasonably have led to the events that resulted in the president's injury. Because all of the president's claimed damages arose out of a single incident, submission of a single interrogatory regarding his possible comparative negligence was appropriate. The president's damages award could not be viewed as a single award flowing from both his unseaworthiness and Jones Act claims, given that his Jones Act claim could not be reduced for comparative negligence. Prejudgment interest would be awarded if the damages award was characterized as an unseaworthiness award.
OUTCOME: The judgment was reversed as to the finding of a single damage award to the president as the superior court had to perform alternate calculations of the total judgment under the unseaworthiness and Jones Act claims; pre- and post-judgment interest was erroneously set. All other points were affirmed.
