DISTRICT COURT DECLINED TO DEPART FROM THE WELL ESTABLISHED RULE THAT A WARRANTY OF SEAWORTHINESS EXTENDED TO MARITIME WORKERS WHO OBTAINED “SEAMAN” STATUS UNDER THE JONES ACT.
DOUGLAS AND NANCY TURNER, PLAINTIFFS, VS. MIDLAND ENTERPRISES, INC. and THE OHIO RIVER CO., INC., DEFENDANTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 03-208-DLB
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8434
March 3, 2006, Decided
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff, an injured worker and his wife, filed an action against defendant coal suppliers after the worker was injured while working on defendants' coal barges. The worker asserted negligence and unseaworthiness claims under the Jones Act and general maritime law. The wife asserted loss of marital consortium claims. The parties filed cross-motions seeking summary judgment as to a seaworthiness claim.
OVERVIEW: The worker's employer used coal to generate electricity. Among other duties, the worker acted as a deckhand on his employer's tugboat, transporting coal-laden barges to and from the employer's unloading facility. The worker alleged that he was injured in two incidents. The summary judgment motions pertained to plaintiffs' claims arising from the second incident. The worker claimed that wet coal on a barge's working deck caused him to slip and fall and that the barge was unseaworthy. Defendants contended that pursuant to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit's decision in Smith, the worker could not bring an unseaworthiness claim against them because he was not employed them. They also argued that the conditions on the barge did not cause the worker to fall. The court noted that it was not bound by the Smith decision. It declined to depart from the well-established rule that a warranty of seaworthiness extended to maritime workers who obtained "seaman" status under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.S. app. § 688. Material factual disputes existed as to whether the worker qualified as a "seaman" under the Jones Act and as to whether the barge was, in fact, unseaworthy.
OUTCOME: The court denied the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment and noted that a status conference had been scheduled to discuss the case.
