Seven Million Dollar Plus Jury Award For Death Of Rigger On Barge Vacated And New Trial Ordered, Due To Improperly Giving Jury Claim Based On Unseaworthiness And Improperly Charging Jury On Negligence Standards
Amerada Hess Corporation, et al., Third-PartyPlaintiffs-Appellants, v. G. Marine Diesel Corp., Third-PartyDefendant-Respondent, FCE Industries Ltd. (Inc.), Third-Party Defendant.
2598
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT
2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6500
May 4, 2004, Decided
May 4, 2004, Entered
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendants, a barge owner and its operator, appealed a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (New York), which after a jury trial, awarded plaintiff administratrix over $7 million in damages in her suit, filed individually and as administratrix of a decedent's estate, to recover damages for a fatal injury decedent incurred while working as a rigger on defendants' barge.
OVERVIEW: The administratrix filed a suit against defendants, seeking to recover for the fatal injury decedent incurred while working as a rigger on defendant's barge. Defendants filed a third-party action against decedent's employer. After claims based on the Jones Act and N.Y. Lab. Law ยง 240 were dismissed because the decedent did not qualify as a seaman and federal maritime law preempted state law, the jury awarded damages after finding the barge unseaworthy and defendants negligent. On appeal, the court reversed and remanded for a new trial, first finding that the trial court erred when it submitted the issue of seaworthiness to the jury. The court found that because decedent was covered under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act and received federal workers' compensation benefits from his employer, the administratrix was limited to a claim of negligence against defendants; therefore the issue of seaworthiness should not have been presented to the jury. The court then found that the trial court erred in its instructions on negligence because it improperly placed primary responsibility for safety on the vessel owner and its agents, rather than on decedent's employer.
OUTCOME: The court reversed and vacated the judgment to the extent that it awarded the administrator damages and remanded the matter for a new trial.
