Mathes v. The Clipper Fleet
Jack Mathes is a seaman employed by Western Boat Operators ("Western"). On October 20, 1982, the Low Tide, the vessel Mathes was a mate on, was moored to an off-shore oil platform when it called the Clipper Larry, a vessel owned by Clipper Fleet, to receive several packages from the Low Tide. Mathes was the mate in charge of the operation. Due to an ocean swell during the loading operations, his foot became pinned between vessels.
Mathes sued Clipper Feet asserting a general maritime law claim of negligence. Mathes alleges that the Clipper Larry failed to use proper loading operations, that the vessel was negligently controlled, improperly manned and without a licensed skipper. The Clipper Fleet denied Mathes allegations and argued that it was Mathes' own negligence that was the sole cause of his injury. At trial, the jury found in favor of both defendants. Mathes' filed an appeal arguing that the district court committed reversible error in refusing to instruct the jury on the Pennsylvania Rule.Should the lower court have provided a jury instruction on the Pennsylvania Rule in a personal injury case?
The Ninth Circuit began its analysis by stating the general principles of the Pennsylvania Rule. Under the rule, when a vessel is involved in an accident that was operated in violation of a maritime regulation the burden of proof shifts to the violating vessel to prove that there her fault was not one of the causes of the injury.
Mathes contends that because the Captain of the Clipper Larry did not have the proper Coast Guard endorsement on his license that the vessel was in violation of the safety regulation thereby bringing his claim within the purview of the Pennsylvania Rule. The district court rejected this argument because its interpretation of the regulation Mathes cites does not require the captain of the vessel have the endorsement but only that one member of the crew have the specific endorsement. The Ninth circuit agreed with this interpretation of the rule. Further, the Ninth Circuit explained that the purpose of the regulation was to insure every vessel have a person whose competence to operate or direct its operations has been assured. The court placed heavy emphasis on the use of the word "a" in the regulation to show that regulation did not require the Captain to be the person with the designation on his license. Therefore, Mathes' failure to show that no member of the Clipper Larry had the requisite designation prevented the district court from providing the jury with a Pennsylvania Rule instruction. The Ninth Circuit also rejected Mathes' argument that the Pennsylvania Rule was relevant because the Captain did not have his credentials physically aboard the ship. It explained that that a pre-requisite for a Pennsylvania Rule instruction is that there be a causal connection between the violation and the injury. Here, the court found no reasonable connection between the Captain's credentials not being physically on the vessel and Horton's injury. As such, it affirmed the district court's ruling. For the same reasoning outlined above concerning the Pennsylvania Rule, the Appellate court affirmed the district court's decision to deny Mathes' right to invoke the negligence per se rule.In order for the court to provide a jury with a Pennsylvania Rule instruction, there must be evidence of a causal connection between the violation of a safety regulation and the injury suffered by the plaintiff.
<< PREVNEXT >>
