Opinion ID: 6826865
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: seaworthiness

Text: The first issue we consider is whether the trial court properly held that the vessel was unseaworthy as a matter of law. A seaman who is injured as a result of an unseaworthy condition of a vessel is entitled to recover for his injuries from the owner of the vessel, regardless of whether the owner was negligent. “The duty is absolute, but it is a duty only to furnish a vessel and appurtenances reasonably fit for their intended use.” Mitchell v. Trawler Racer, Inc., 362 U.S. 539, 550 (1960). The essence of the seaworthiness doctrine is “that things about a ship, whether the hull, the decks, the machinery, the tools furnished, the stowage, or the cargo containers, must be reasonably fit for the purpose for which they are to be used.” Gutierrez v. Waterman S.S. Corp., 373 U.S. 206, 213 (1963). This standard does not require that every piece of equipment be reasonably fit for whatever use to which it may be put, but only that it be reasonably fit for those tasks for which it was furnished. 1 Therefore, if a specific piece of equipment is employed in an anticipated or intended manner and the equipment fails, whether because it is defective or improperly handled, the vessel may be considered unseaworthy. But the personal, negligent act of a fellow seaman, unforeseen by the shipowner, does not create an unseaworthy condition that imposes liability on the owner for injuries resulting from that negligent act. Usner v. Luckenbach Overseas Corp., 400 U.S. 494, 500 (1971). Determining whether a piece of equipment is unfit for its intended use, thus rendering the vessel unseaworthy, is dependent on the circumstances of each case and, “for this reason, it can rarely be determined that a vessel was unseaworthy as a matter of law.” 1B Ellen M. Flynn et al., Benedict on AdrHiralty § 24, at 3-71 (7th ed. 1993). We find this general rule to be applicable here, and hold that a jury issue was presented on the question of whether the vessel was seaworthy. Consideration of this issue by the jury is also dictated by Gillikin’s concession that the evidence presented was conflicting as to the intended use of the fuel sounding stick and his additional arguments that the vessel was rendered unseaworthy because it did not have an operational crane to lift the access plate or a sufficient safety device to hold the plate in an open position. 2 Accordingly, we will reverse that portion of the trial court’s summary judgment holding that the vessel RONNIE C was unseaworthy as a matter of law.