Johnson v. Blue Marlin Services of Acadiana
Date Decided: May 14th, 2010
Originally Filed in: Louisiana (Federal)
Decided by: Louisiana Eastern District Court (Federal)
Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
Judge: Judge Zainey
Citation: 2010 WL 1978350 (E.D. La 2010)
Background:
Joshua Johnson, plaintiff, was a cook, employed by co-defendant Blue Marlin, aboard the M/V CREOLE FISH which was owned and operated by co-defendant Hercules Drilling Company.
On January 22, 2009, the CREOLE FISH allided with an unlit platform owned by Chevron.
Due to the force of the allision, Johnson was knocked from his bunk and as a result suffered serious injury to his neck, shoulder, and back.
Soon after sustaining the injury Johnson filed three causes of action against Blue Marlin: (1) a Jones Act negligence claim; (2) an unseaworthiness claim under the general maritime law*; and (3) a maintenance and cure claim.
In response to Johnson's claims, Blue Marlin filed a motion for summary judgment in regard to Johnson's Jones Act and unseaworthiness claims.
Despite recognizing that the CREOLE FISH might have had a malfunctioning GPS, an outdated radar system, and insufficient navigational aids, Blue Marlin contends that no evidence exists to support that it was negligent in any way or that its negligence contributed to Johnson's injuries.
Blue Marlin points to the fact that it had no control over the actions of the vessel's crew and that it had no knowledge of a defect in the vessel, a requirement for liability to be found.
In opposition to Johnson's contention that Blue Marlin knew or should have known that the CREOLE FISH was unsafe, Blue Marlin replies that there is no legal support Johnson's contention and that the vessel was properly documented and in compliance with Coast Guard regulations.
Joshua Johnson, plaintiff, was a cook, employed by co-defendant Blue Marlin, aboard the M/V CREOLE FISH which was owned and operated by co-defendant Hercules Drilling Company.
On January 22, 2009, the CREOLE FISH allided with an unlit platform owned by Chevron.
Due to the force of the allision, Johnson was knocked from his bunk and as a result suffered serious injury to his neck, shoulder, and back.
Soon after sustaining the injury Johnson filed three causes of action against Blue Marlin: (1) a Jones Act negligence claim; (2) an unseaworthiness claim under the general maritime law*; and (3) a maintenance and cure claim.
In response to Johnson's claims, Blue Marlin filed a motion for summary judgment in regard to Johnson's Jones Act and unseaworthiness claims.
Despite recognizing that the CREOLE FISH might have had a malfunctioning GPS, an outdated radar system, and insufficient navigational aids, Blue Marlin contends that no evidence exists to support that it was negligent in any way or that its negligence contributed to Johnson's injuries.
Blue Marlin points to the fact that it had no control over the actions of the vessel's crew and that it had no knowledge of a defect in the vessel, a requirement for liability to be found.
In opposition to Johnson's contention that Blue Marlin knew or should have known that the CREOLE FISH was unsafe, Blue Marlin replies that there is no legal support Johnson's contention and that the vessel was properly documented and in compliance with Coast Guard regulations.
Issues:
Can a Jones Act Employer's escape constructive notice, and potentially liability altogether, by declining to perform an inspection of a third-party's vessel?
Can a Jones Act Employer's escape constructive notice, and potentially liability altogether, by declining to perform an inspection of a third-party's vessel?
Held:
No.
In order for summary judgment to be appropriate the record, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-movant, must show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact.
The Trial court began it's analysis by stating the well-established rule that an employer has an absolute and non-delegable duty to furnish the seamen in its employ with a safe place in which to work. Sanford v. Caswell, 200 F.2d 830, 832 (5th Cir.1953).
It then explained that later decisions broadened a Jones Act employer's duties to inspecting third-party property for hazards and to protect the employee for possible defects. Davis v. Hill Eng'r, Inc., 549 F.2d 314, 329 (5th Cir.1977).
However, the simple existence of a defect is not sufficient to support a cause of action because the Jones Act is not a strict liability scheme; instead liability is based on fault.
As such, a Jones Act employer must have have notice and opportunity to correct an unsafe condition before liability attaches; therefore the standard of care is what the employer objectively knew or should have known.
The Trial court recognized that the broad duty imposed upon a Jones Act employer was imposed for the safety and protection of seaman.
To allow a Jones Act employer a "no-notice" defense when it has declined to inspect a third-party vessel would run contrary to the purpose behind the employer's non-delegable duty to provide a safe work place for his employees.
The court even goes so far as to state that an employer may very well be required to inspect a vessel that it does not own or operate in order to fulfill his own duty of providing a safe place to work.
Thus, Johnson's Jones Act negligence claim contains genuine issues of material fact for a trier of fact to determine and as a result summary judgment is improper for this cause of action.
Ultimately, the District Court ordered that the motion for partial summary judgment be granted in part and denied in part; granting the unseaworthiness motion and denying the Jones Act motion.
* Johnson ultimately conceded that he had no claim against Blue Marlin for unseaworthiness because it did not own, operate, or charter the CREOLE FISH.
No.
In order for summary judgment to be appropriate the record, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-movant, must show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact.
The Trial court began it's analysis by stating the well-established rule that an employer has an absolute and non-delegable duty to furnish the seamen in its employ with a safe place in which to work. Sanford v. Caswell, 200 F.2d 830, 832 (5th Cir.1953).
It then explained that later decisions broadened a Jones Act employer's duties to inspecting third-party property for hazards and to protect the employee for possible defects. Davis v. Hill Eng'r, Inc., 549 F.2d 314, 329 (5th Cir.1977).
However, the simple existence of a defect is not sufficient to support a cause of action because the Jones Act is not a strict liability scheme; instead liability is based on fault.
As such, a Jones Act employer must have have notice and opportunity to correct an unsafe condition before liability attaches; therefore the standard of care is what the employer objectively knew or should have known.
The Trial court recognized that the broad duty imposed upon a Jones Act employer was imposed for the safety and protection of seaman.
To allow a Jones Act employer a "no-notice" defense when it has declined to inspect a third-party vessel would run contrary to the purpose behind the employer's non-delegable duty to provide a safe work place for his employees.
The court even goes so far as to state that an employer may very well be required to inspect a vessel that it does not own or operate in order to fulfill his own duty of providing a safe place to work.
Thus, Johnson's Jones Act negligence claim contains genuine issues of material fact for a trier of fact to determine and as a result summary judgment is improper for this cause of action.
Ultimately, the District Court ordered that the motion for partial summary judgment be granted in part and denied in part; granting the unseaworthiness motion and denying the Jones Act motion.
* Johnson ultimately conceded that he had no claim against Blue Marlin for unseaworthiness because it did not own, operate, or charter the CREOLE FISH.
Comments:
A Jones Act employer has an absolute and non-delegable duty to furnish the seamen in its employ with a safe place in which to work.
Steve Gordon
A Jones Act employer has an absolute and non-delegable duty to furnish the seamen in its employ with a safe place in which to work.
Steve Gordon
<< PREVNEXT >>
