Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02072/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02072-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 46:688 Jones Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID W. COLLINS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv2072 WQH

(DHB)

FINDINGS OF FACT AND

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

pursuant to Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

BACKGROUND

This is a seaman’s action for personal injury and damages arising from an

incident which occurred on January 6, 2010, on board the vessel SS Curtiss (“Curtiss”),

a public vessel owned by Defendant United States of America. Specifically, Plaintiff

fell on a stairway while walking backwards up the stairs carrying a piece of equipment. 

At the time of the incident, Plaintiff David W. Collins was a member of the crew of the

Curtiss.

On September 8, 2011, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a Complaint in this

Court. (ECF No. 1). The Complaint asserts three cause of action: (1) negligence under

the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. §§ 30104, et seq., and general maritime law, (2)

unseaworthiness under general maritime law, and (3) maintenance and cure.

- 1 - 11cv2072 WQH (DHB)

Case 3:11-cv-02072-WQH-DHB Document 62 Filed 12/06/13 Page 1 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

A bench trial as to the first and second causes of action took place on August 21-

22, 2013. (ECF Nos. 37, 38). Prior to the presentation of evidence, the Court dismissed

the third cause of action for maintenance and cure with prejudice and without objection

by Plaintiff. Plaintiff contends that the United States was negligent and the Curtiss was

unseaworthy because the stairway at issue did not have handrails installed and the edge

of the hatch at the top of the stairway was not covered with nonskid paint. The United

States contends that it was not negligent and the Curtiss was not unseaworthy. The

United States contends that Plaintiff’s injuries were solely caused by Plaintiff’s

imprudent decision to carry a heavy item up the stairway in an unsafe manner despite

having safer alternatives available to move the item. The United States alternatively

contends that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by application of the primary duty rule.1

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the

Clarification Act, 50 App. U.S.C. §1291, and the Suits in Admiralty Act, 46 U.S.C. §§

30901, et seq.

I. Factual Background

The Curtiss is a public vessel owned by the United States by and through the

Department of Transportation, Maritime Division and operated by Crowley Technical

Management (“Crowley”). The vessel is part of the United States’ Ready Reserve

Fleet. The Curtiss is a “stick boom” cargo vessel that has been modified to support a

Marine Corps helicopter squadron. The vessel is capable of being loaded with large

containers that have been converted into specialized workshops in which the Marines

perform repair and maintenance on helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft. As part of its

modification, the Curtiss was fitted with a helicopter pad, barracks for the Marines, and

1

 The United States also contends that “[t]o the extent [Plaintiff] contends that his injury was caused by a negligent design of the Curtiss, that is, his injury was caused by the design of the steps leading up to the top of hatch 6, the Court would not be

vested with subject matter jurisdiction under the discretionary function exception to the waiver of the sovereign’s immunity.” (ECF No. 33 at 21-22). The Court does not reach

this issue.

- 2 - 11cv2072 WQH (DHB)

Case 3:11-cv-02072-WQH-DHB Document 62 Filed 12/06/13 Page 2 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

four sets of steps leading up to the hatch covers upon which the workshops were placed

for the Marines. The steps were placed aboard the vessel to provide the Marines access

to their workshops. The steps leading up to hatch number six were designed with

removable stanchions and chain handrails. The stanchions and handrails were designed

to be removable because the stanchions would interfere with the opening of hatch

number six if they were not removed. When the stanchions and handrails were not in

place, they were stored next to the steps leading up to hatch number six.

Upon graduating high school in 1990, Plaintiff attended the Seaman’s

International Union Merchant Marine facility in Piney Point, Maryland. Upon

completion of his training, Plaintiff began his Merchant Marine career as an Ordinary

Seaman and member of the Seaman’s International Union. At the time of the incident

at issue, Plaintiff was 39 years old and was an “Able-Bodied Seaman” with over twenty

years of experience in the Merchant Marine.

In addition to being an Able-Bodied Seaman, Plaintiff was the “Bosun” aboard

the Curtiss. As the ship’s Bosun, he was the highest-ranking unlicensed member of the

deck crew. Plaintiff served as Bosun aboard the Curtiss for approximately five years,

from 2005 until the incident at issue in 2010. As Bosun, Plaintiff was the foreman of

the deck crew and was in charge of the unlicensed crewmembers of the deck

department, which is made up of “Ordinary and Able-Bodied Seaman.” Plaintiff was

the first link in the chain of command onboard the ship, acting as the intermediary

between the unlicensed seamen and the ship’s officers. Crewmembers would bring any

concerns regarding the operation of the vessel, including safety concerns, to Plaintiff,

who would voice those concerns to the ship’s officers.

In addition to serving as the ship’s Bosun, Plaintiff was the Union Steward

onboard the vessel. As the Union Steward, Plaintiff was responsible for protecting the

rights of all the unlicensed crewmembers below him, not only those in the deck

department, who he was in charge of, but also those in the steward department and the

engine room. If an unlicensed member of the crew had safety concerns, he or she

- 3 - 11cv2072 WQH (DHB)

Case 3:11-cv-02072-WQH-DHB Document 62 Filed 12/06/13 Page 3 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

would voice their concerns to Plaintiff, as the Bosun and Union Steward. Plaintiff was

responsible for ensuring that the crewmember’s safety concerns were addressed.

At all relevant times, Crowley had in place written job safety procedures that all

crewmembers, licensed and unlicensed, were trained in and were required to follow. 

Under Crowley’s job safety procedures, Plaintiff was responsible for ensuring that a job

safety analysis was carried out prior to any job that, in his mind, involved non-routine

or potentially-unsafe lifting. Plaintiff had conducted many such analyses, and had

completed over 100 “Job Safety Analysis” forms prior to the date of the incident. On

several of these Job Safety Analysis forms, Plaintiff identified “improper lifting” as a

potential hazard associated with a task involving heavy lifting. Less than one month

prior to the incident, Plaintiff participated in a ship’s safety meeting, the topic of which

was back care for the maritime industry. A video was shown at this meeting

demonstrating proper lifting techniques. In addition, the participants were provided a

handout covering safety and proper lifting. The crew aboard the Curtiss had a general

practice that if a crewmember thought an item was too heavy to be carried up stairs,

then the item should not be carried up stairs.

Throughout his 20-year experience as a merchant seaman, Plaintiff received

on-the-job training in lifting heavy objects, and using a ship’s booms and cranes. One

of Plaintiff’s duties as the Bosun of the Curtiss was to assist contractors working

onboard the vessel with certain tasks, such as operating the ship’s booms to assist

contractors needing to lift equipment onto or off of the vessel. Crewmembers aboard

the Curtiss are trained to lift and move objects in a safe manner. Even in the absence

of conducting a job safety analysis, Plaintiff was trained to go through a checklist of the

necessary steps prior to performing every job involving lifting in order to assess how

the lift can be done safely. Part of Plaintiff’s training aboard the Curtiss involved

looking into safer options to performing a task involving lifting.

On January 6, 2010, the Curtiss was moored to Pier 9 at the 32nd Street Naval

Station in San Diego, California. That morning, Plaintiff had a meeting with Chief

- 4 - 11cv2072 WQH (DHB)

Case 3:11-cv-02072-WQH-DHB Document 62 Filed 12/06/13 Page 4 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Mate Scott Kreger, to discuss the work planned for that day. Plaintiff was aware that

outside painting contractors would be coming onboard to continue their ongoing lead

abatement project. When the abatement contractors arrived, Plaintiff used one of the

ship’s cargo booms to load the contractors’ equipment onto the ship. Thereafter, he

joined another crewman who was chipping and painting the gangway.

The same day, an employee of another contractor, Radio Holland, was onboard

the vessel removing radio and radar equipment from the Bridge Deck, which is three

decks above the Main Deck. Radio Holland had been working aboard the Curtiss for

several weeks prior to January 6, 2010. After a lunch break on January 6, 2010, the

Radio Holland employee, William Gillette, approached Chief Engineer Roy Silliker and

asked if Gillette could use the ship’s boom to off-load old equipment and tools. 

Silliker, consistent with standard procedure aboard the Curtiss, referred Gillette to

Plaintiff, whose duty as the ship’s Bosun included assisting contractors and operating

the ship’s booms. 

Gillette asked Plaintiff to assist him in removing an old radio transceiver. The

transceiver was approximately four feet by two feet by one and a half feet, and weighed,

according to Plaintiff’s estimate, between 100 and 150 pounds.2

 Gillette had already

removed the transceiver from its mounting bracket on the aft bulkhead in the Radio

Room and placed it on a four-wheeled cart. Plaintiff selected the route he and Gillette

would take for off-loading the transceiver from the Curtiss. Plaintiff and Gillette

proceeded to wheel the cart out of the Radio Room, down a hallway and into the ship’s

elevator. Plaintiff and Gillette then proceeded to the Main Deck. Once on the Main

Deck, Plaintiff and Gillette wheeled the cart to the stairway leading up to the top of

port-side hatch cover number six, where a flat rack had been placed. The flat rack was

used to load and off-load items onto and off of the ship.

Once the cart with the transceiver was in place near the six-step stairway leading

2

 Gillette estimated that the transceiver weighed approximately 70 pounds.

- 5 - 11cv2072 WQH (DHB)

Case 3:11-cv-02072-WQH-DHB Document 62 Filed 12/06/13 Page 5 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

up to the top of hatch cover number six, Plaintiff intended to carry the transceiver with

Gillette up the stairway to the flat rack. The stanchions and chain handrails were not

in place at the time. Plaintiff testified that he did not “view carrying [the transceiver]

up those steps without stanchions in place as a safe way” to accomplish the task of

moving the transceiver into position to be off-loaded from the vessel.3

 (Tr. Trans. at 90,

ECF No. 52). Despite his safety concerns, Plaintiff did not stop the task in order to

conduct a job safety analysis or consider other, safer options for moving the transceiver. 

Plaintiff proceeded to carry the transceiver up the steps with Gillette, with Plaintiff in

the lead, walking up the steps backwards. At some point while carrying the transceiver

backwards up the steps, Plaintiff fell into a sitting position on the edge of the hatch

cover, with the transceiver coming down on his right leg. Plaintiff then stood up, and

continued to carry the transceiver with Gillette to the flat rack.

Thereafter, Plaintiff informed a fellow crewmember, Milton Seril, of the incident

and stated that he had hurt his right leg. Seril informed Chief Mate Kreger of the

incident. Kreger immediately went to hatch number six to assist Plaintiff. After

assessing the situation, Kreger advised Plaintiff to go rest in the crew lounge. Kreger

began an accident investigation. After resting in the lounge, Plaintiff was taken to

University Hospital in San Diego by Chief Engineer Silliker. Plaintiff was diagnosed

with a bruise to the right leg. Plaintiff’s treating physician declared Plaintiff permanent

and stationary on November 9, 2010. The last time Plaintiff was seen by his treating

physician for his leg injury was on November 9, 2010. Plaintiff has not pursued any

employment since the date of the incident, January 6, 2010.4

3

 Plaintiff also testified that, as the Bosun and Union Steward, Plaintiff would

not have allowed his charges to routinely do something that was unsafe.

4

 Plaintiff contends that, due to the transceiver hitting his leg on January 6, 2010, Plaintiff has been unable to resume his duties aboard the Curtiss from January 6, 2010 to the date of trial. The United States contends that Plaintiff has failed to provide expert medical testimony upon which the Court could determine that the incident at issue

caused all of Plaintiff’s alleged injuries. Because of the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein, the Court does not reach this issue.

- 6 - 11cv2072 WQH (DHB)

Case 3:11-cv-02072-WQH-DHB Document 62 Filed 12/06/13 Page 6 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

II. Negligence and Unseaworthiness

“To recover on [a] Jones Act claim, [a plaintiff is] required to establish by a

preponderance of the evidence: (1) negligence on the part of his employer (or one for

whom the employer is responsible), and (2) that the negligence was a cause, however

slight, of his injuries.” Havens v. F/T Polar Mist, 996 F.2d 215, 218 (9th Cir. 1993)

(citing Hechinger v. Caskie, 890 F.2d 202, 207 (9th Cir.1989)). The Jones Act “does

not make the employer the insurer of the safety of his employees while they are on duty. 

The basis of [the employer’s] liability is [the employer’s] negligence, not the fact that

injuries occur.” Consol. Rail Corp. v. Gottshall, 512 U.S. 532, 543 (1994) (discussing

the standard of liability under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. § 51);

see also Hechinger, 890 F.2d at 208 (stating that the Jones Act provides seamen the

cause of action and judicially developed doctrine of liability granted to railroad workers

by the Federal Employers’ Liability Act).

“To establish a claim for unseaworthiness, [a plaintiff] must establish: (1) the

warranty of seaworthiness extended to him and his duties; (2) his injury was caused by

a piece of the ship’s equipment or an appurtenant appliance; (3) the equipment used was

not reasonably fit for its intended use; and (4) the unseaworthy condition proximately

caused his injuries.” Ribitzki v. Canmar Reading & Bates, Ltd. P’ship, 111 F.3d 658,

664 (9th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). “‘The standard is not perfection, but reasonable

fitness.’ The owner is not an insurer. In other words, a seaman is not absolutely

entitled to a deck that is not slippery. He is absolutely entitled to a deck that is not

unreasonably slippery.” Lieberman v. Matson Navigation Co., 300 F.2d 661, 662 (9th

Cir.1962) (quoting Mitchell v. Trawler Racer, Inc., 362 U.S. 539, 550 (1960)); see also

Ribitzki, 111 F.3d at 665 (“Although Ribitzki was not entitled to a perfect work space,

he was entitled to one which was neither unreasonably cramped nor unreasonably

slippery.”).

A. Safer Available Alternatives

In this case, Plaintiff testified that he did not view carrying the transceiver up the

- 7 - 11cv2072 WQH (DHB)

Case 3:11-cv-02072-WQH-DHB Document 62 Filed 12/06/13 Page 7 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

steps without stanchions as safe, and that he failed to consider any other options for offloading the transceiver from the vessel. Before carrying the transceiver up the steps in

an unsafe manner, Plaintiff should have conducted a job safety analysis as required by

Crowley’s job safety procedures. A job safety analysis would have identified the risks

associated with the task of off-loading the transceiver and identified safer means of

accomplishing it. Even in the absence of performing a formal job safety analysis,

Plaintiff should have considered and used one of the several safer methods readily

available to Plaintiff to accomplish the task of off-loading the transceiver, as Plaintiff

was trained to do aboard the Curtiss. For example, Plaintiff testified that it was possible

for Plaintiff and Gillette to lift the transceiver and place it on the hatch, and then walk

up the short stairway without carrying the transceiver up the steps. Prior to the incident,

Plaintiff had seen crewmembers using this technique for unloading food stores from the

Curtiss.

Defendant’s expert, Captain John Betz, testified that in his opinion there were

several safer methods available to Plaintiff to accomplish the task of off-loading the

transceiver from the vessel. Plaintiff could have used a cargo sling and either boom

number eight, located forward of the number five port hatch, or boom number ten,

located aft of the ship’s number six port hatch, to hoist the transceiver directly from the

Main Deck to the dock. Plaintiff could have used a lifting tackle to hoist the transceiver

from the Main Deck up onto the top of the number six port hatch cover, thus

eliminating the need to carry it up the stairway. Another alternative available to

Plaintiff would have been to use the four-wheel dolly to move the transceiver from the

Radio Room to the aft Boat Deck, and then use the life-raft davit and a tagline to lower

the transceiver onto the dock. Using any of these options would have meant that

Plaintiff would not have been required to carry the transceiver up the stairway.

Plaintiff testified that he could not have used either of the ship’s booms to lift the

transceiver directly from the Main Deck to the dock because both were out of reach and

the booms’ limit switches would not make it possible. The Court does not find this

- 8 - 11cv2072 WQH (DHB)

Case 3:11-cv-02072-WQH-DHB Document 62 Filed 12/06/13 Page 8 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

testimony to be credible in light of the more credible testimony of Chief Mate Kreger,

the testimony of Defendant’s expert Betz, and portions of the testimony of Plaintiff’s

expert, William Trenkle. Kreger testified that the crew used the vessel’s booms to lift

items from the Main Deck in the same location near the steps at hatch number six where

Plaintiff testified the booms could not reach. Kreger testified that he had used the

vessel’s booms to lift the fenders that provide protection to the vessel when smaller

vessels come along side to provide supplies to the Curtiss. While under way, the

fenders are stored near the steps leading up to hatch cover number six.

Plaintiff’s expert Trenkle conceded on cross-examination that the alternative

methods outlined by Betz were available to Plaintiff. However, in Trenkle’s opinion

the alternatives would not have been practical, because they would have taken more

time and, in some cases, more manpower to complete. In Trenkle’s opinion, when

carrying out tasks onboard a merchant vessel, such as the Curtiss, a seaman must strike

a balance between safety and practicality. In Betz’s opinion, a seaman should never

balance safety against practicality; safety always comes first. The Court finds Betz’s

opinion in this regard to be more credible.

Upon considering the opinions of both experts and the other witnesses, the Court

finds that there were safer alternatives reasonably and readily available to Plaintiff to

off-load the transceiver which would not require Plaintiff to carry the transceiver up the

steps. Although the alternatives outlined by Betz and other witnesses may have

required more time and manpower, the Court finds that Plaintiff had the time, training

and additional manpower readily available to safely complete each of the alternative

methods. At the time of the incident, the Curtiss was inactive and on reserve status. 

There was no time pressure on Plaintiff to complete the task of off-loading the

transceiver. In addition to Gillette, Plaintiff could have requested the help of fellow

crewmember Milton Seril, who was a member of the deck department and was

supervised by Plaintiff, and/or the general utility crewman, known aboard the Curtiss

as the “Goodie.” Even if a seaman must strike a balance between safety and practicality

- 9 - 11cv2072 WQH (DHB)

Case 3:11-cv-02072-WQH-DHB Document 62 Filed 12/06/13 Page 9 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

as suggested by Trenkle, the Court finds that, based upon the circumstances facing

Plaintiff at the time of the incident, the balance between safety and practicality clearly

favored moving the transceiver using one of the safer alternatives reasonably and

readily available to Plaintiff.

B. Stanchions and Handrails

At the time Plaintiff decided to walk backwards up the steps to the top of hatch

six while carrying the transceiver, the removable stanchions and chain handrails that

serve as handrails while the hatch is closed were not in place. Plaintiff testified that he

believed that had the stanchions and chain handrails been in place, he would not have

been injured in the accident. Based upon the credible testimony of Chief Engineer

Silliker and Chief Mate Kreger, there were several sets of stanchions and chain

handrails available for Plaintiff to use, including a set of stanchions and chain handrails

next to the hatch six steps. The policy and practice aboard the Curtiss at the time was

that the stanchions and handrails were to be put in place by any crewmember if the

crewmember felt they were needed.5

 The Court finds no negligence on the part of the

United States or unseaworthiness related to the stanchions and handrails.

C. Nonskid Paint

Plaintiff’s expert Trenkle opined that the lack of nonskid paint on the thin raised

metal edge of the hatch cover, located above the top step of the stairs leading to the top

of hatch cover six, caused Plaintiff to slip and fall, and was thus the cause of Plaintiff’s

alleged injury. Trenkle testified that Plaintiff could not have looked behind him to

ensure that he placed his foot securely on the nonskid paint on top of hatch six, directly

5

 Plaintiff testified that in 2006 he was ordered by the first engineer on the Curtiss not to use the stanchions and handrails even when the hatch was closed. 

Plaintiff testified that he believed this was a standing order which applied on the day of the accident, January 6, 2010. The Court does not find this testimony to be credible in light of the more credible testimony of Chief Engineer Silliker and Chief Mate

Kreger, who testified that no such order was given by an officer on the vessel. The more credible testimony is that the policy and practice aboard the Curtiss at the time of the incident was that the stanchions and handrails were to be put in place by any crewmember if the crewmember felt they were needed.

- 10 - 11cv2072 WQH (DHB)

Case 3:11-cv-02072-WQH-DHB Document 62 Filed 12/06/13 Page 10 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

behind the thin raised edge in question. The Court does not find these opinions to be

credible. First, as discussed above, the Court finds that Plaintiff should not have been

carrying the transceiver up the stairway while walking backwards. Second, Plaintiff

should have installed the readily available stanchions and handrails, which Plaintiff

testified would have prevented his injuries. Third, having decided to carry the

transceiver up the stairway while walking backwards, Plaintiff should have been more

attentive and taken care to watch his step. Had he been doing so, he would have placed

his foot securely on the nonskid yellow paint on top of hatch six, thereby providing him

secure footing. Plaintiff testified that had he looked down and placed his foot on the

nonskid on top of hatch six, he would not have slipped. The Court finds that the lack

of nonskid paint on the raised metal edge of hatch six was not a cause of Plaintiff’s

accident. Plaintiff’s accident was caused solely by his own unilateral decision to carry

the transceiver up the stairway while walking backwards and without installing the

stanchions and handrails—despite having safer alternatives readily available—and not

taking care to watch his step as he did so. 

The Court finds that no negligence on the part of the United States, or its agents

or employees, caused, or contributed in any manner to, Plaintiff’s injuries. Plaintiff has

not met his burden of proof under the Jones Act, and has not established that his injuries

were caused by any negligence on the part of the United States. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

claim of negligence under the Jones Act and general maritime law is dismissed and

judgment shall be entered in favor of the United States as to Plaintiff’s first cause of

action.

The Court finds that the Curtiss was properly manned and properly equipped. 

The Court finds that the Curtiss and its appurtenances were fit for their intended

purpose and that no unseaworthiness of the vessel caused, or contributed in any manner,

to Plaintiff’s injuries. Based upon the evidence presented, the Court finds that the

stairway leading up to hatch six was reasonably fit for its intended purpose. Plaintiff

has not met his burden of proof to establish either that the stairway was not reasonably

- 11 - 11cv2072 WQH (DHB)

Case 3:11-cv-02072-WQH-DHB Document 62 Filed 12/06/13 Page 11 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

fit for its intended use or that any unseaworthy condition proximately caused his

injuries. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims of unseaworthiness are dismissed and

judgment shall be entered in favor of the United States as to Plaintiff’s second cause of

action.

III. Primary Duty Rule

The United States alternatively contends that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the

application of the primary duty rule. “Under the primary duty rule, a seaman-employee

may not recover from his employer for injuries caused by his own failure to perform a

duty imposed on him by his employment.” N. Queen Inc. v. Kinnear, 298 F.3d 1090,

1095-96 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing, inter alia, Wilson v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 150

F.3d 1, 11 (1st Cir. 1998) (“The primary duty rule provides that a ship’s officer may not

recover against his employer for negligence or unseaworthiness when there is no other

cause of the officer’s injuries other than the officer’s breach of his consciously assumed

duty to maintain safe conditions aboard the vessel.”)). The primary duty rule “is in

tension with the more general admiralty principle that contributory negligence and

assumption of the risk are not bars to a seaman’s recovery against his employer for

personal injury, but serve only to mitigate his damages. As a result, the courts have

cabined the reach of the primary duty rule, lest it go too far.” Bernard v. Maersk Lines,

Ltd., 22 F.3d 903, 906 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). “Accordingly, in order for an

employer to relieve itself of liability under the primary duty rule: (1) the seaman must

have consciously assumed a duty as a term of employment; (2) the dangerous condition

that injured the seaman must have been created by the seaman or could have been

controlled or eliminated solely by the seaman in the proper exercise of his or her

employment duties; and (3) the seaman must have knowingly violated a duty

consciously assumed as a condition of employment.” N. Queen Inc., 298 F.3d at 1095

(quotation omitted). 

For example, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held that a munitions

ship’s chief mate who fell through sheathing on the floor of the cargo hold could not

- 12 - 11cv2072 WQH (DHB)

Case 3:11-cv-02072-WQH-DHB Document 62 Filed 12/06/13 Page 12 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

recover against the United States for his resulting injuries. The mate’s duties included

overseeing safe working conditions on the vessel. He breached the duty by failing to

repair sheathing that he knew was damaged and by failing to provide sufficient lighting

for a person to see the damaged sheathing and step around it. The Ninth Circuit held

that because the mate’s injuries resulted from the breach of a duty that he had

consciously assumed as a term of his employment, his Jones Act claims were barred by

the primary duty rule. See Reinhart v. United States, 457 F.2d 151, 153-54 (9th Cir.

1972).

Plaintiff, as the Bosun, consciously assumed certain specific and well-defined

duties with regard to the safety and supervision of operations entailing lifting objects

aboard the Curtiss. Plaintiff’s injury was caused solely by his decision to carry the

transceiver up the steps to hatch cover six while walking backwards and without the

stanchions and handrails in place. Plaintiff made the decision to carry the transceiver

up the steps despite believing that doing so was unsafe, and despite having the training,

knowledge, tools, manpower and time available to offload the transceiver without

carrying it up the steps. The dangerous condition at issue—carrying the transceiver up

the stairs while walking backwards and without stanchions and handrails in

place—could have been controlled or eliminated solely by Plaintiff in the proper

exercise of his employment duties. By carrying the transceiver up the stairs while

walking backwards and without stanchions and handrails in place, Plaintiff knowingly

violated a duty consciously assumed as a condition of employment. Even if Plaintiff

had established the required elements of either of Plaintiff’s causes of action, the Court

finds that the United States has established that the elements required to find a breach

of a primary duty owed by Plaintiff as Bosun to the United States as vessel owner are

met, and application of the primary duty rule bars Plaintiff’s recovery from the United

States.

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in

- 13 - 11cv2072 WQH (DHB)

Case 3:11-cv-02072-WQH-DHB Document 62 Filed 12/06/13 Page 13 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff as to all claims in the Complaint. 

DATED: December 6, 2013

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 14 - 11cv2072 WQH (DHB)

Case 3:11-cv-02072-WQH-DHB Document 62 Filed 12/06/13 Page 14 of 14