IN A JONES ACT CASE, AN EMPLOYEE WAS A SEAMAN WHILE THE DREDGE TO WHICH HE HAD BEEN ASSIGNED WAS UNDERGOING REPAIRS BECAUSE HIS BASIC ASSIGNMENT DID NOT CHANGE WHEN HE WORKED AT THE REPAIR FACILITY; HE CONTRIBUTED TO THE FUNCTION OF THE DREDGE BY REPAIRIN
WEEKS MARINE, INC., Appellant/Cross-Appellee v. Jose J. SALINAS, Appellee/Cross-Appellant
COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS, FOURTH DISTRICT, SAN ANTONIO
2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 866
February 7, 2007, Delivered
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Cross-appeals were taken from a judgment of the 381st Judicial District Court, Starr County (Texas), which awarded damages to appellee employee under the Jones Act for injuries sustained as a seaman acting in the course and scope of his employment. The trial court reduced the amount of compensatory damages awarded for the employee's unseaworthiness claim.
OVERVIEW: The employee was assigned to a dredge. While the dredge was at a repair facility, the employee injured his back carrying two batteries from a truck to the dredge. The jury found that the employee was a seaman, that the employer's negligence was a legal cause of the injury, that 70 percent of the negligence was attributable to the employer, and that the dredge was unseaworthy. The court held that the employee was a seaman while the dredge was undergoing repairs because his basic assignment did not change; he contributed to the function of the dredge by repairing it. The award for future economic loss was within the range of evidence presented at trial. There was sufficient evidence of unseaworthiness, including the employee's testimony that there was no dolly that he could use in performing the task. There was no duplication in the amounts awarded for tort damages and cure. Evidence of severe pain and inability to engage in everyday activities established mental anguish. Because no contributory negligence question was submitted as to the unseaworthiness claim, the employer waived the issue under Tex. R. Civ. P. 279; hence, the trial court erred in reducing the award by 30 percent.
OUTCOME: The court reversed the trial court's reduction of the amount of compensatory damages awarded for the unseaworthiness claim, rendered judgment that the employee was entitled to recover the amount of compensatory damages awarded by the jury, and affirmed the remainder of the trial court's judgment.
