Opinion ID: 1749674
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Was the jury verdict excessive?

Text: 46 U.S.C.A. section 688, authorizes recovery of damages for personal injuries received by a seaman in the course of his employment. 2 Norris, The Law of Seamen section 690 (3d Ed. 1970), provides: § 690. Negligence.  The seaman's calling is a hazardous one in which he faces on the one hand the dangers of the natural elements, and on the other, the requirements of ship's discipline which may expose him to those elements by requiring him to obey orders against perhaps his better judgment. Recognizing the peculiar hazards of the seaman's vocation and having in mind the purpose for which the Jones Act was enacted, the United States Supreme Court avoided giving negligence a narrow, restricted and technical meaning. It left the interpretation of negligence to the courts to construe that word liberally so as to include all the meanings given to it in the light of the peculiar hazards of the seafaring profession. Any negligence on the part of an employer under the Jones Act which plays any part, however slight, in producing an injury to an employee is sufficient to fix liability for such injuries. The mere fact that a seaman has suffered an injury does not per se call for Jones Act liability, if employer negligence has not been found to exist. There are two requirements that must be satisfied in order to maintain a Jones Act suit; (a) there must have been a negligent action on the part of the employer; and (b) the act must have contributed to the injury provided first that the injured party was a seaman and that the negligent defendant or respondent was the seaman's employer. Negligence is the gravamen of a suit under the Jones Act, and that negligence must be alleged and proved by the seaman. The seaman must prove the existence of a duty, the negligent violation of this duty by his employer, and finally, a causal relationship of the violation to the injury sustained. The jury plays a pre-eminent role in a Jones Act case. Liability of a shipowner under the act may be predicated upon negligent conduct of its officers, agents or employees, or from defects in the ship, or its equipment or appliances, attributable to the owner's negligence. 32 Am.Jur.2d, Federal Employer's Liability Act § 54 (1982). There must be a causal relationship between the owner's failure to exercise due care and the resulting injury. In Rogers v. Missouri-Pacific Railroad Co., 352 U.S. 500, 77 S.Ct. 443, 1 L.Ed.2d 493 (1957), the test of a causation was espoused as: Under this statute the test of a jury case is simply whether the proofs justify with reason the conclusion that employer negligence played any part, even the slightest, in producing the injury or death for which damages are sought. It does not matter that, from the evidence, the jury may also with reason, on grounds of probability, attribute the result to other causes, including the employee's contributory negligence. Judicial appraisal of the proofs to determine whether a jury question is presented is narrowly limited to the single inquiry whether, with reason, the conclusion may be drawn that negligence of the employer played any part at all in the injury or death. Judges are to fix their sights primarily to make that appraisal, and, if that test is met, are bound to find that a case for the jury is made out whether or not the evidence allows the jury a choice of other probabilities. The statute expressly imposes liability upon the employer to pay damages for injury or death due in whole or in part  to its negligence. (Emphasis added.) (352 U.S. at 506-07, 77 S.Ct. at 448-49, 1 L.Ed.2d at 499-500) (emphasis added.) In the case at bar, it was undisputed that appellee fell and injured his knee in the course of his employment on board the Nuevo. Although one doctor asserted that the meniscus ordinarily locks and causes the fall, Dr. Wall testified that if appellee's history was true, his injury could have resulted from the fall. Marine forecasts indicated inclement weather conditions when the Nuevo left port as well as leading up to the time of appellee's injury. There was expert testimony that the Nuevo was not reasonably safe on December 30, 1978, regarding the installation of the ice cooler on the deck of the vessel. In fact, the only major controverted issues were the length of time that elapsed following appellee's injury before he was brought in for medical attention and the connection between the original knee injury and the subsequent hip replacement. Submission of Jones Act claims requires a very low evidentiary threshold; even marginal claims are properly left for jury determination. Smith v. Massman Const. Co., 607 F.2d 87 (5th Cir.1979); and Leonard v. Exxon Corp., 580 F.2d 522 (5th Cir.1978). Following appellee's injury and subsequent hip surgery, it is clear that appellee is precluded from sea duty or any activity which requires climbing. Although Dr. Enger asserted appellee would be able to find gainful employment for at least minimum wage, appellee's disability to his injured leg was rated at 100% loss of use of that leg. This disability was broken down into 60% disability due to the knee injury and 40% disability due to the hip injury. According to Dr. Holford, the infection in appellee's knee spread into his thigh causing a weakness of all tissue. Dr. Holford, who performed the hip replacement, opined that the nonviability of the hip bone was due to a lack of blood supply in that area. Dr. Enger succinctly summed up the appellee's condition following his initial injury when he testified: If there has been no other factor involved, I would say that there is a ... it's almost like the domino theory where one thing starts to go wrong and then everything seems to happen in this case. Certainly not saying that it does not happen to a surgeon that he gets a post-operative wound infection, these things will happen in the operating room. Then you get a fibrosis, a scarring in there. And then you come along with the man who is not ambulatory and, if he's been taking care of himself and everything else and there is no other factors which can be established, then it's just an unfortunate situation which develops. But, it's almost like Murphy's law  if there's a weak spot in the system, it's going to find it and it's all going to come up. Other doctors denied that the hip replacement was caused by the initial knee injury. All the experts seemed to agree that appellee's knee was degenerated to some extent prior to the injury and that the future condition of appellee's hip uncertain. The jury was instructed to consider damages to appellee's hip if it believed from a preponderance of the evidence that the original knee injury predisposed appellee to infection and disease to the hip. The jury evidently so found as evidenced by the size of its award. Subsequent to appellee's knee injury, he spent 95 days during 1979 and 45 days during 1980 in various hospitals. There was evidence of personality changes as well as pain and suffering following the accident. Appellee is no longer able to resume sea duty but is now confined to light work. The jury, based upon conflicting expert testimony as to the causation of the hip replacement, awarded appellee $200,000. Based upon this record, we cannot say this verdict was excessive so as to evidence passion, bias and prejudice.