EVIDENTIARY HEARING REQUIRED BEFORE DECIDING JONES ACT NEGLIGENCE CLAIM TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE NEGLIGENT CONDITION WAS EITHER CREATED BY THE EMPLOYER OR THAT IT EXISTED AT A TIME WHEN THE EMPLOYER SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DISCOVER THE CONDITION THROUGH
JOEY ROULSTON, PLAINTIFF versus YAZOO RIVER TOWING, INC., DEFENDANT
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:04cv199-DCB-JCS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI, WESTERN DIVISION
418 F. Supp. 2d 851; 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12593
February 28, 2006, Decided
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff seaman brought claims under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.S. app. § 688, and general maritime law against defendant employer claiming that the employer's negligence and failure to maintain a seaworthy vessel caused the seaman's injuries. The seaman also sought maintenance and cure. The cause was transferred to the court, and the employer filed a motion for summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 as to all claims.
OVERVIEW: While boarding a barge to prepare for towing, the seaman stepped backwards onto a manhole cover, which flipped causing the seaman to fall into the opening. The court granted summary judgment as to the unseaworthiness claim but denied it as to the maintenance and cure claim. The court found that an evidentiary hearing was needed before deciding the Jones Act negligence claim. To overcome summary judgment, the seaman had to offer proof that the improperly secured manhole cover was either created by the employer or that it existed at the time when the employer should have been able to discover the condition through a reasonable inspection of the barge to ensure a safe workplace. To sustain the unseaworthiness claim, the seaman failed to establish some special relation between the employer and the barge where the employer did not own the barge. As to the maintenance and cure claim, there were disputed issues of material fact as to whether the seaman obtained maximum medical recovery, whether he was paid a proper maintenance rate, and whether his maintenance pay was prematurely terminated. The court did find that future wages were unavailable under a maintenance and cure claim.
OUTCOME: The court granted the employer's motion for summary judgment as to the seaman's general maritime unseaworthiness claim but denied the motion as to the seaman's maintenance and cure claim. The court dismissed the seaman's general maritime unseaworthiness claim with prejudice and ordered an evidentiary hearing as to the seaman's Jones Act negligence claim.
