Matthew Wendelboe v Exxon Shipping Co., et al.
The plaintiff Matthew Wendelboe appealed a judgment in favor of the defendants, Exxon Shipping Co., SeaRiver Maritime, Inc., and SeaRiver Maritime Financial Holdings, Inc. (referred to collectively as "SeaRiver"). The judgment dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims with prejudice.
On December 9, 1992, the plaintiff was aboard the Exxon New Orleans, a vessel owned and operated by SeaRiver. The plaintiff worked as the vessel's chief engineer and safety coordinator. The day of the accident, the plaintiff and the vessel's chief mate went to investigate a noise coming from a water locker.
While the two men were investigating, a powerful wave struck the vessel and washed the chief mate into the sea. The plaintiff, who had heard the wave approaching, braced himself around the rail of the ladder. When the wave struck, the plaintiff lost his grip on the ladder and landed on the main deck.
The plaintiff survived the wave, but alleged that he sustained serious personal injuries, especially to his right wrist. SeaRiver paid the plaintiff maintenance in the amount of $11,240.00, cure in the amount of $17,206.65 and ongoing disability benefits totaling $460,000.00.
The plaintiff filed suit seeking damages under the Jones Act and general maritime law. The trial court found: (1) that neither the plaintiff nor defendants acted negligently, and (2) the wave that caused the plaintiff's injury was an Act of God; and therefore, the defendants were not liable. This appeal followed.
Whether the trial court erred in concluding that the plaintiff's injuries resulted from an "Act of God" that exonerated the defendants from liability.
This Court held that the defendants' negligence must be determined to establish the Act of God defense. Thus, this Court looked at the captain, who was hired and employed by the owner, SeaRiver, to see if he was negligent.
The evidence revealed that the captain of the ship took reasonable precautions in authorizing the chief mate to conduct a limited investigation of the noise. The captain had told the chief mate and the plaintiff to take a radio and let him know their progress. They were to use the safest measures available to investigate. This Court found him not negligent.
Therefore, the trial court's finding of no negligence on the part of the captain was fully supported by the record and was not manifestly erroneous. Thus, the trial court's finding that the Defendant could use the Act of God [ Force Majeure ] defense was affirmed. The plaintiff failed to show negligence on the part of the defendants.
An "Act of God" is a legal terms for events that occur outside of human control. Examples include sudden floods, waves, gale forces, natural disasters, etc.
When an Act of God occurs, no one can be held responsible unless they put others in danger through their negligence.
Steve Gordon
http://www.offshoreinjuries.com
<< PREVNEXT >>
