Opinion ID: 41759
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: its position was a safety hazard because it ob-

Text: Energy Partners claims it had no duty to in- structed the walkway. demnify Elevating Boats for Comeaux’s injur- ies based on the collision with the drums, be- Thus, even if a third party caused the deck cause the district court did not mention how to be cluttered, Elevating Boats, as the operathose injuries were “attributable in any way to tor of the vessel, had a duty to remedy or obElevating Boats.” The district court found ject to that clutter. Although the captain bethat Comeaux sustained at least a share of his lieved there was no negligence because of the injuries from the collision with the drums. Al- walkways, Comeaux was certainly free to arthough the court did not explain precisely that gue negligence, because the walkways did not the claim against Elevating Boats based on the perform adequately in a chaotic, emergency collision with the drums was premised on Ele- situation. Given the finding that at least some vating Boats’ negligent maintenance of the of Comeaux’s injuries arose from the collision deck (which was cluttered), it was implicit in with the drums, any error the district court the decision ordering indemnification. Indem- may have committed, by not expressly finding nification can be ordered only if there is a that the claim for injuries suffered from the claim premised, in whole or in part, on the “ac- collision with the drums was based on Elevattive, passive, sole or concurrent negligence or ing Boats’ negligent maintenance of the deck, other legal fault, of every kind and character” is harmless. of Elevating Boats. AFFIRMED. Contrary to Energy Partners’ assertions, Comeaux’s injuries resulting from the collision with the drums are not solely based on the negligence of third parties. Rather, Com- eaux’s complaint, which alleges that Elevating Boats allowed an unsafe condition, encom- passes a claim of negligence based on a clut- 9 Id. 10 Id. at 299 (emphasis added). See also Kok- esh v. Am. S.S. Co., 747 F.2d 1092, 1094 (6th Cir. 1984) (same). 11