THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER A PLAINTIFF WAS EXPOSED TO THE PERILS OF THE SEA WHILE WORKING ON A BARGE AND QUALIFIED AS A SEAMAN UNDER THE JONES ACT WAS A JURY ISSUE.
Dennis G. GULASKY, Sr., PLAINTIFF v. INGRAM BARGE COMPANY, DEFENDANT
5:02-CV-173-R
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY, PADUCAH DIVISION
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1188
January 10, 2006, Decided
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant employer filed a motion for summary judgment in connection with plaintiff employee's claim for negligence under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.S. App. 688, and for unseaworthiness under general maritime law.
OVERVIEW: Plaintiff fell from a ladder while climbing out of a barge floating on a river. Defendant operated several vessels that were used in cleaning, repair, and fleeting work. Defendant argued that plaintiff was not a "seaman" at the time of the accident because he lacked a connection to a vessel or identifiable fleet and his duties did not expose him to the perils of sea. The court held that the question as to whether plaintiff qualified as a seaman under the Jones Act was a jury issue. Defendant owned approximately 70 percent of the vessels on which plaintiff worked, and he spent approximately 80 percent of his time working on vessels owned by defendant. These facts could have led the finder of fact to hold that plaintiff had a connection to defendant's vessels. An employee was not required to go out to sea in order to have been exposed to the perils of sea. Rather, one of the factors to take consideration when determining whether or not an employee was exposed to the perils of sea included the seagoing nature of his/her duties.
OUTCOME: The court denied defendant's motion for summary judgment.
