Trung Le v. American Seafoods Company LLC
Date Decided: July 7th, 2009
Originally Filed in: Washington (Federal)
Decided by: U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit (Federal)
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Judge: Judge O'Scannlain
Citation: 2009 WL 2573769 (9th Cir. 2009)
Background:
Plaintiff, Trung Le ("Le), filed an appeal after the lower court found he failed to carry his burden of proof in his claim under the Jones Act and his general maritime law claim, claiming the F/T Northern Jaeger, was unseaworthy.
Plaintiff, Trung Le ("Le), filed an appeal after the lower court found he failed to carry his burden of proof in his claim under the Jones Act and his general maritime law claim, claiming the F/T Northern Jaeger, was unseaworthy.
Le testified he was injured from a fall while attempting to dislodge a box. Le attributed his fall to the listing of the ship, an icy floor at his work station, and the flawed design of the boxilator.
Issues:
Did this Court reverse the lower court's finding that Le failed to present sufficient evidence in order to make a claim under the Jones Act and unseaworthiness?
Did this Court reverse the lower court's finding that Le failed to present sufficient evidence in order to make a claim under the Jones Act and unseaworthiness?
Held:
American Seafoods introduced conflicting testimony from an eye witness who claimed that he did not see Le fall or injure himself. Accordingly, based upon this evidence the trial court ruled in favor of American Seafoods.
This Court paid special deference to the trial judge's credibility determinations. This Court found that Le failed to show how the vessel's list and alleged ice in his workplace played a role in causing or aggravating his injuries. Moreover, Le did not establish at trial that his injury resulted from American Seafood's breach of its duty to provide a vessel and equipment that are "reasonably fit for their intended use".
American Seafoods introduced conflicting testimony from an eye witness who claimed that he did not see Le fall or injure himself. Accordingly, based upon this evidence the trial court ruled in favor of American Seafoods.
This Court paid special deference to the trial judge's credibility determinations. This Court found that Le failed to show how the vessel's list and alleged ice in his workplace played a role in causing or aggravating his injuries. Moreover, Le did not establish at trial that his injury resulted from American Seafood's breach of its duty to provide a vessel and equipment that are "reasonably fit for their intended use".
Giving special deference to the trial court's finding this affirmed the judgment in favor of American.
Comments:
When a trial court rules upon credibility determinations the higher courts gives special deference to it. This is because crucial evidence, such as testimony, is inherently more accurate if heard and seen live.
When a trial court rules upon credibility determinations the higher courts gives special deference to it. This is because crucial evidence, such as testimony, is inherently more accurate if heard and seen live.
Steve Gordon
http://www.offshoreinjuries.com
<< PREVNEXT >>
