* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 96-40313

Summary Calendar

_____________________

ROBERT J. HURYSZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

OCEAN SHIPS, INC. and

WILMINGTON TRUST CO.,

Defendants-Appellees.

_______________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for

the Southern District of Texas

(G-95-50)

_______________________________________________________

April 23, 1997

Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert Hurysz, employed as a seaman on the tanker M/V PEARL

BUCK, operated by Ocean Ships, Inc., was injured when bringing in

a mooring line by hand. Hurysz sued Ocean Ships and Wilmington

Trust Co., the owner of the ship, alleging Jones Act negligence

and unseaworthiness. 46 U.S.C. §688. At trial, the jury
2

returned a verdict finding that Hurysz was injured on the ship as

he alleged, but also finding that defendants were not negligent,

nor the ship unseaworthy. The district court rendered judgment

for the defendants, awarding nothing to Hurysz.

Hurysz argues on appeal that the jury’s verdict is

unsupportable as a matter of law because of evidence that 

Ocean Ships had determined in a safety meeting that lines would

be brought in by mechanical and not manual means. Appellant

contends the temporary unavailability of the winch resulted in

the unseaworthiness of the vessel, and a reasonable jury could

not have found otherwise.

At trial, however, plaintiff failed to move for a directed

verdict at the close of all the evidence or for a judgment n.o.v.

following the return of the verdict. Our review is therefore

“limited to whether there was any evidence below to support the

jury’s verdict, irrespective of its sufficiency, or whether plain

error was committed which, if not noticed, would result in a

‘manifest miscarriage of justice.’” Coughlin v. Capitol Cement

Co., 571 F.2d 290, 297 (5th Cir. 1978); MacArthur v. University

of Tex. Health Center at Tyler, 45 F.3d 890, 896 n.8 (5th Cir.

1995).

The evidence tendered before the jury was that Hurysz

injured himself while manually handling a mooring line, a routine

operation in his duties as a seaman. The jury heard further
3

evidence that the ship’s equipment was neither defective nor

inadequate for the intended purposes of securing the mooring

lines. Although the ship’s operators had earlier decided in the

course of safety meetings to use mechanical means to bring in

ship lines whenever possible, manual handling of the lines would

still be necessary and expected under certain conditions.

From the evidence in the record, the jury could have

concluded that the M/V PEARL BUCK was not unseaworthy and that

Ocean Ships was not negligent in permitting seamen to bring the

lines in by hand on the occasion in question. Accordingly, the

trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Hurysz’

claims and finding for defendant.

AFFIRMED.