Opinion ID: 718634
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Walker primary duty doctrine

Text: 21 Scurlock argues Gautreaux's claim is barred by the doctrine enunciated in Walker v. Lykes Bros. S.S. Co., 193 F.2d 772 (2d Cir.1952), such that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability. Walker's holding has been construed to mean that a seaman who breaches a duty owed his employer, which he assumed by accepting employment, may not recover from his employer if such breach is the sole cause of the seaman's injury. Peymann v. Perini Corp., 507 F.2d 1318 (1st Cir.1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 914, 95 S.Ct. 1572, 43 L.Ed.2d 780 (1975). Accordingly, Scurlock argues Gautreaux's recovery is barred because the master or ship's officer is responsible for the safe operation of the vessel. Gautreaux breached this duty because he forgot to release the towing wires during unloading operations, thereby creating excessive strain on the wires and causing the failure of the electric towing winch, in response to which he negligently operated the winch in such a manner as to cause himself injury. 22 Scurlock attempts to distinguish Kelley v. Sun Transp. Co., 900 F.2d 1027 (7th Cir.1990), and Kendrick v. Illinois Cent. Gulf R.R., 669 F.2d 341 (5th Cir.1982), both of which denounced Walker's complete bar rule in favor of proportionate fault reduction, as not embracing the scenario in which the captain creates the unreasonably unsafe condition and then negligently proceeds to encounter it, thereby injuring himself. 23 Our jurisprudence may lend some support to Scurlock's contention that Gautreaux should be barred from recovery if his negligent conduct alone caused his injury, and his employer was completely free from fault. See, e.g., Kendrick, 669 F.2d at 344 ([The employee's] negligence would only reduce, not bar, recovery unless the employer were not negligent at all and the employee's negligence was the sole cause of his injury.); Boudreaux v. Sea Drilling Corp., 427 F.2d 1160 (5th Cir.1970). Nonetheless, a Jones Act employer is liable for even the slightest negligence, and the seaman-plaintiff's burden of proving causation is featherweight. River Transp. Assocs. v. Wall, 5 F.3d 97, 100 n. 4 (5th Cir.1993); Zapata Haynie Corp. v. Arthur, 980 F.2d 287, 289 (5th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 509 U.S. 906, 113 S.Ct. 2999, 125 L.Ed.2d 692 (1993). As indicated earlier, when confronted with the Jones Act plaintiff's featherweight burden, judgment as a matter of law is appropriate only when there is a complete absence of probative facts supporting the nonmovant's position. Hughes, 68 F.3d at 93; Bommarito v. Penrod Drilling Corp., 929 F.2d 186, 188 (5th Cir.1991). Thus, because the record contains evidence that Scurlock was at least slightly negligent and that its negligence contributed to Gautreaux's injuries, the district court's refusal to take the question of liability from the jury was proper.