Cruise Ship Law

TINERMALO TAU, Plaintiff-Appellant v. F/V SAINT JUDE, JOSEPH MALLEY, JANE DOE MALLEY, AND THEIR MARITAL COMMUNITY, Defendants-Appellees.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 8981
April 16, 2007, Filed

PROCEDURAL POSTURE:Plaintiff challenged a judgment from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's claims for negligence under general maritime law. The district court found that plaintiff failed to show that a shooting, which caused his injuries, was foreseeable or that defendants failed to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances.

OVERVIEW: Plaintiff conceded that he was not entitled to recover on his claims for under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.S. app. § 688 (current version at 46 U.S.C.S. §§ 30104, 30105), before the district court concluded that he was not entitled to recover under general maritime law. On appeal, the court held that the district court had original jurisdiction because the complaint alleged a Jones Act violation. The court was not required to determine whether the case was governed by maritime law or state law because the result was the same under maritime or state law. Plaintiff advanced negligence, strict vicarious, and strict liability theories for an employee's assault. There was no maritime theory of strict liability or negligence per se under which defendants could be liable for plaintiff's injuries. Assuming defendants owed plaintiff a duty of reasonable care, there was no evidence that defendants knew of the assailant's dangerous tendencies or that it was foreseeable he would harm someone. Plaintiff's negligent supervision or hiring theory failed under state law, as there was no evidence that defendants knew or should have known of the assailant's dangerous propensity.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed the judgment of the district court.