District Court Erred By Granting Summary Judgment For Corporation On Seaman's Claim For Maintenance And Cure When He Presented Sufficient Evidence From Which A Reasonable Jury Could Find That He Injured His Knee During His Shift As Fire Watch Aboard Vesse
EDDISON C. CAMACHO, a seaman, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ICICLE SEAFOODS,
INC., an Alaska corporation; NORTHERN VICTOR F/V, a vessel, her engines,
equipment, tackle and appurtenances, In Rem; EVENING STAR INC, Defendants
- Appellees.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 27687
November 7, 2006, Filed
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant seaman challenged an order from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, which granted a summary judgment of dismissal in favor of appellee corporation in the seaman's suit for recovery under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.S. app. � 688(a) and under the admiralty common law doctrines of unseaworthiness and maintenance and cure.
OVERVIEW: The seaman alleged that his injury resulted from a conspiracy by other employees, including a supervisor. On appeal, the court held that the seaman produced no evidence to support his conspiracy theory beyond his own conjecture. Absent any evidentiary support, the seaman's allegations were insufficient to defeat summary judgment on his Jones Act claim. The district court properly awarded summary judgment in favor of the corporation on the unseaworthiness claim because the seaman did not present sufficient evidence of savage and vicious acts by other crew members to support his claim. However, recovery for maintenance and cure was not predicated on the fault or negligence of a shipowner. The seaman produced evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that he sustained an injury to his knee and that the injury occurred during his shift as a fire watch aboard a vessel. The district court erred by granting summary judgment for the corporation simply because the seaman's motion in opposition did not specifically address the corporation's argument regarding the maintenance and cure issue.
OUTCOME: The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Jones Act and unseaworthiness claims. The court reversed the order to the extent that it dismissed the seaman's claim for maintenance and cure and remanded that claim to the district court for trial.
