JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE CLAIMANT ON HIS JONES ACT CLAIM AND CLAIM THAT THE BARGE WAS UNSEAWORTHY, WAS AFFIRMED BECAUSE THE ANGLE IRONS POSED A REASONABLY FORESEEABLE DANGER, AND THE FINDER OF FACT COULD FIND THAT IT WAS UNREASONABLE TO LEAVE THE ANGLE IR
Donald Lee Hiltbruner, Respondent, v. Crowley Marine Services, Inc., Appellant.
COURT OF APPEALS OF WASHINGTON, DIVISION ONE
2007 Wash. App. LEXIS 2602
September 10, 2007, Filed
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant, claimant, sued respondent, barge owner, for negligence under the Jones Act and claimed the barge was unseaworthy. The parties stipulated to damages of $300,000 and tried the issue of liability. At the close of the claimant's case, the owner moved for directed verdict (a judgment as a matter of law). The Washington trial court entered its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment against the owner. The owner appealed.
OVERVIEW: The claimant was working on a barge. The barge had a metal plate called a spill rail, which prevented oil on the deck from spilling into the water. Triangular metal angle irons at regular intervals along the water side of the spill rail served to reinforce it along the length of the rail. The owner painted trip hazards with white paint, and the owner had never painted angle irons along the spill rail white. When the claimant hopped toward the barge deck, his momentum carried him into a shadowed area. As his foot landed in that area, it struck an angle iron, injuring his knee. The appellate court ruled that the trial court correctly determined the duty owed by the owner to the claimant, and did not error in implicitly denying the motion for judgment as a matter of law. The owner had a duty to provide the claimant with a safe place to work, the angle irons posed a reasonably foreseeable danger, and the finder of fact could find that it was unreasonable to leave the angle irons painted the same color as the deck. Also, the trial court did not err in concluding that the owner's failure to paint the angle irons white made the barge unseaworthy.
OUTCOME: The judgment was affirmed.
