Summary Judgment For Shipping Company Reversed Where Vessel Captain Allowed Intoxicated Seaman On Board Which Caused Injury To Seaman Trying To Break Up A Fight
ROBERT HASTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus TRANS ATLAS BOATSINC; GREATER LAFOURCHE PORT COMMISSION, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 03-30884
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
389 F.3d 510; 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 22768
November 2, 2004, Filed
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant seaman sought judicial review of a decision by the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Louisiana that granted summary judgment in favor of appellees, a port commission and ship owner, on negligence, unseaworthiness, and vicarious liability claims. The seaman's injuries arose when he intervened in a fight between two other seamen.
OVERVIEW: The seaman contended that the captain was negligent by allowing: (1) the other seaman to come onto the vessel and remain aboard despite being aware that he was intoxicated, and (2) the intoxicated seaman to sneak away from the harbor police and the captain and re-board the vessel. A reasonable could conclude that the seaman's injury was a foreseeable consequence of permitting the intoxicated seaman on board because of the risk he posed to his shipmates. A reasonable jury might also find the captain was negligent in allowing the intoxicated seaman to re-board the vessel after being terminated. The harbor police testified that the owner possessed a duty to remove the terminated employee safely from both the vessel and the surrounding port area. The seaman offered no evidence that the intoxicated seaman possessed the characteristics needed to make the ship unseaworthy. The owners were not vicariously liable for the acts of the harbor police. Since the conduct and activities of the harbor police were insufficiently related to traditional maritime activity, admiralty jurisdiction does not exist over the seaman's claims against the harbor police.
OUTCOME: The district court's summary judgment dismissal of the seaman's negligence claim against the owner was reversed, and the case was remanded. The district court's grant of summary judgment as to the seaman's other claims was affirmed.
Bookmark: 
