Opinion ID: 36860
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Trans Atlas’s Negligence

Text: Under the Jones Act, a “seaman is entitled to recovery . . . if his employer’s negligence is the cause, in whole or in part, of his injury.” Gautreaux v. Scurlock Marine, 107 F.3d 331, 335 (5th Cir. 1997) (en banc). To prevail on a negligence claim, Hasty must establish that Captain Kopsywa, on behalf of Trans Atlas, failed to prevent Brown’s foreseeable assault of Hasty. See Miles v. Melrose, 882 F.2d 976, 983–84 (5th Cir. 1989); 1B–III STEVEN F. FRIEDELL, BENEDICT ON ADMIRALTY § 31 (7th ed. 2004). Hasty contends that Captain Kopsywa was negligent at two points during the incident: (1) by allowing Brown to come onto the vessel and remain aboard despi te knowing that Brown was intoxicated; and (2) by allowing Brown to sneak away from the Harbor Police and Captain Kopsywa and reboard the vessel. (1) Allowing Brown initially to board the vessel A reasonable jury could determine that Hasty’s injury was a foreseeable consequence of permitting Brown aboard the vessel in his intoxicated state. Trans Atlas contends that Captain Kopsywa’s actions were reasonable because Brown was not belligerent when boarding the vessel and Captain Kopsywa immediately terminated Brown when he became violent. However, Trans Atlas concedes that Captain Kopsywa violated his company’s “zero-tolerance” alcohol policy, which prohibits intoxicated employees from being allowed aboard the vessel in order to protect the safety of the crew. A jury might conclude that Hasty’s injury was a foreseeable result of permitting Brown 3 on board because of the risk an intoxicated seaman poses to his shipmates. (2) Allowing Brown to reboard the vessel A reasonable jury might also find Captain Kopsywa negligent for Brown reboarding the vessel. Brown was able to return to the M/V ROXANNE T in part because its gangway was left unguarded. The Harbor Police testified that Trans Atlas possessed a duty to remove terminated employees safely from both the vessel and the surrounding port area. A jury could conclude that by not preventing Brown from reboarding the vessel, Captain Kopsywa breached his duty to provide Hasty with a safe working environment. While we express no opinion on the ultimate resolution of Hasty’s negligence claim, the evidence and issues raised by Hasty should be properly presented to a jury.