Opinion ID: 552375
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: other maritime remedies

Text: 17 Bach's survivors also assert a negligence action against Trident Steamship under section 905(b) of the LWHCA. They make two arguments: (i) that the crew and owners of the M/V JAYMAT TRIDENT negligently provided a substandard boarding ladder; and (ii) that the crew of the TRIDENT were negligent in failing to administer cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) to him after his heart attack.
18 Bach's survivors assert that the crew was negligent because it failed to provide him with an appropriate means of boarding the ship. They rely on two regulations concerning pilot ladders. The two regulations--one a part of the Safety of Life at Sea Convention (SOLAS) and a nearly identical Coast Guard regulation--require that when the distance from the water to the ship's deck exceeds thirty feet, access from a pilot ladder to the [vessel or ship] must be by way of an accommodation ladder or by an equally safe and convenient means. Safety of Life at Sea Convention, 1974, Multilateral, Ch. 5, Regulation 17(a)(ii), 32 U.S.T. 47, 243, TIAS No. 9700, reprinted at 6B Benedict on Admiralty, doc. 14-8, at 14-400; 46 C.F.R. 96.40-1(g). The SOLAS regulation also requires a pilot ladder to be secured so that the pilot can gain safe and convenient access to the ship after climbing ... not more than 9 metres (30 feet). 19 Bach's survivors point out that the freeboard of the M/V JAYMAT TRIDENT was approximately thirty-two feet and that no accommodation ladder or similar device was provided for Bach's ascent. Therefore, they contend, both the SOLAS regulation and the Coast Guard regulation were violated. 20 We conclude that these regulations were not violated. The regulations do not prohibit pilot ladders more than thirty feet in length; nor do they prevent the use of a pilot ladder when the vessel's freeboard exceeds thirty feet. The obvious intention of these regulations is to limit to thirty feet the distance a pilot can be required to climb a pilot ladder. It is only after the pilot has climbed thirty feet of pilot ladder that an accommodation ladder or other similar device is required. 21 It is undisputed that Bach began his ascent of the pilot ladder at least eleven feet above the water level. Bach therefore climbed considerably less than thirty feet on that ladder. Because Bach was required to climb less than thirty feet on the pilot ladder, no accommodation ladder or other device was required. Hence, Bach's section 905(b) claim based on violation of these regulations fails.
22 Bach's survivors also asserts a negligence claim based on the failure of the crew to administer CPR to him. Undisputed medical testimony indicates that Bach had no more than a fifteen percent chance of surviving even if the crew had rendered CPR and electrical defibrillation had been available. From this uncontradicted evidence, no rational factfinder could conclude that the crew's failure to administer CPR more likely than not caused Bach's death. See W. Keeton, Prosser and Keeton on Torts section 41, at 269 (5th Ed.1984) (plaintiff must introduce evidence which affords a reasonable basis for the conclusion that it is more likely than not that the conduct of the defendant was a cause in fact of the result); Restatement (Second) by Torts sections 431, 433 comment b (1965). 23 Bach's survivors seek to avoid this factual weakness by urging this court to adopt a special rule of causation, the loss of a chance of survival doctrine. Under this doctrine, which as far as we can tell, has been confined to medical malpractice cases, plaintiffs who cannot meet the ordinary standards of causation are allowed to recover for negligent conduct that decreases their chances of survival. See generally Annotation, Medical Malpractice: Loss of Chance Causality, 54 ALR 4th 10 (1987). 4 24 We decline the invitation to apply this doctrine in this section 905(b) case, well beyond the context in which it has been developed. 25 Bach's survivors have therefore failed to prove causation and failed to persuade us to adopt the loss of a chance of survival doctrine. They therefore may not recover in negligence for the failure of the crew to administer CPR.
26 Bach's survivors contend that they may bring an unseaworthiness action based on the Sieracki  seaman doctrine. See Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U.S. 85, 66 S.Ct. 872, 90 L.Ed. 1099 (1946). The Sieracki doctrine survives only in favor of maritime workers who are not covered by the LHWCA. See Aparicio v. Swan Lake, 643 F.2d 1109, 1118 (5th Cir.1981). However, the record before us does not clearly reveal whether Bach was an LHWCA-covered worker. 5 We therefore address their claim on the merits. 27 Unfortunately for Bach's survivors, this claim is nothing more than their negligence claim recast in terms of the warranty of seaworthiness. They assert that the vessel was unseaworthy because it did not have the type of ladder prescribed by SOLAS and Coast Guard regulations. As we have already noted, undisputed summary judgment evidence shows there was no violation. Hence, the unseaworthiness claim must fail as well. 28 AFFIRMED.