Court Opinion

ID: 2965110
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:35:33.231318+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:48:58.192130
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 97-1776

                                      JOHN FORD,

                                 Plaintiff, Appellee,

                                          v.

                          WOODS HOLE, MARTHA'S VINEYARD AND
                            NANTUCKET STEAMSHIP AUTHORITY,

                                Defendant, Appellant.
                                 ___________________

        No. 97-2007

                                      JOHN FORD,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                          WOODS HOLE, MARTHA'S VINEYARD AND
                            NANTUCKET STEAMSHIP AUTHORITY,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.
                                 ____________________

                    APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FROM THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. Joseph L. Tauro, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                       Selya, Boudin, and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                                 ______________
                                 ____________________

            Thomas E. Clinton  with whom Clinton &  Muzyka, P.C. was on  brief
            _________________            _______________________
        for defendant.
            David F. Anderson with  whom Latti Associates LLP was on brief for
            _________________            ____________________
        plaintiff.

                                    ______________

                                  February 20, 1998 
                                                     
                                    ______________

                 Per  Curiam.    The Woods  Hole,  Martha's  Vineyard and
                 ___________

            Nantucket  Steamship  Authority ("the  Steamship  Authority")

            appeals from a  jury verdict awarding  damages to John  Ford.

            Ford  was an  able bodied  seaman employed  on the  Steamship

            Authority's  M/V Eagle, a  passenger and car  ferry operating

            between Hyannis and  Nantucket, Massachusetts.  On the day of

            Ford's misfortune, February 24, 1995,  the Eagle was laid  up

            for general maintenance in Woods Hole, Massachusetts.  

                 The drama began when one of  Ford's fellow seamen, Byron

            Costa, approached  a paint  trailer on the  pier next  to the

            ship.  Danny Pryor, the ship's boatswain and Costa's brother-

            in-law, was  with him.   Costa was  holding a  "manhelper," a

            long wooden pole with a  metallic tip, designed to connect to

            a paint  roller to  increase a painter's  reach.   Inside the

            paint trailer,  another seaman named Serephine  Rodrigues was

            responsible for distributing  tools and mixing paint  for use

            in maintenance tasks.  Costa  asked Rodrigues to mix him some

            epoxy paint; Rodrigues refused, citing his instructions  that

            he was only to issue oil-based paints.  A quarrel ensued, and

            Rodrigues  eventually acceded  to Costa's  demands  and began

            mixing the epoxy paint.  

                 While  Rodrigues was at  work, Costa continued  to argue

            with him.   At some  point, Rodrigues  became frustrated  and

            told Costa to "leave  me alone" and "get  back in the  boat."

            Rodrigues also threw a light rag, which hit Costa in the head

                                         -2-
                                         -2-

            and slipped  off.  Costa  swung the manhelper back  with both

            hands and then forward in Rodrigues's direction.   

                 Prior to this moment, Ford had approached the trailer to

            return some  tools.  While  inside the trailer, he  heard the

            altercation escalate and  "knew something was going  to pop."

            Ford  emerged  from the  trailer  just  as  Costa  swung  the

            manhelper at Rodrigues.  The manhelper struck Ford in the hip

            and then  glanced off Rodrigues's hand, which had been raised

            to ward off  the blow.   Ford has been seriously  disabled by

            the resulting injury.

                 Ford sued the Steamship Authority in the district court,

            alleging  negligence under  the Jones Act,  46 U.S.C.    688,

            unseaworthiness, and an entitlement  to maintenance and  cure

            under general  maritime law.1   On October  28, 1996,  a jury

            awarded  Ford  $740,000 for  negligence  and unseaworthiness,

            prejudgment interest at  a rate of 6%  (totaling $57,172.60),

            and  $23,000 for  maintenance and  cure.  The  district court

            entered judgment on the  verdict on November 26,  and amended

                                
            ____________________

                 1Both parties  assume that  the latter  two claims  fall
            under the admiralty  jurisdiction of the federal  courts.  It
            is not entirely clear that  they satisfy the "location  test"
            of admiralty jurisdiction, namely, that the  injury "occurred
            on  navigable water  or .  . .  injury  suffered on  land was
            caused by a  vessel on navigable water."   Jerome B. Grubart,
                                                       __________________
            Inc. v.  Great Lakes  Dredge &  Dock Co.,  513 U.S.  527, 534
            ____     _______________________________
            (1995).   But  Ford's  claim  under the  Jones  Act  provides
            federal  question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.   1331, so the
            other claims  fall within  the court's pendent  jurisdiction.
            See  Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co., 358 U.S.
            ___  ______    ____________________________________
            354, 380-81 (1959).

                                         -3-
                                         -3-

            the  judgment on May  1, 1997, after  the Steamship Authority

            pointed out a mathematical error.  

                 The  Steamship  Authority  now  appeals  the verdict  of

            unseaworthiness  and  negligence.    At  oral  argument,  the

            Steamship Authority correctly  conceded that the  verdict may

            be reversed only if the  jury could not reasonably have found

            for Ford  on either theory.  Because we find that the verdict

            of unseaworthiness  is supported  by the  record,  we do  not

            address the issue of Jones Act negligence, which involves the

            separate question  whether  the Steamship  Authority  was  on

            notice of Costa's proclivity for violence.

                 It is common ground that a vessel owner may be found  in

            breach  of the  warranty of  seaworthiness if  one seaman  is

            assaulted by another.   Boudoin v. Lykes Bros.  S.S. Co., 348
                                    _______    _____________________

            U.S. 336, 338-39  (1955).  The  decisive question is  whether

            the  assaulting  seaman   was  "equal   in  disposition   and

            seamanship  to the ordinary men in  the calling."  Id. at 338
                                                               ___

            (quoting Keen v. Overseas  Tankship Corp., 194 F.2d  515, 518
                     ____    ________________________

            (2d Cir. 1952)).  Our limited  task on appeal is to determine

            whether Ford  presented enough  evidence so  that a  rational

            jury could conclude that Costa was worse in disposition  than

            the ordinary seaman.

                 No  one factor is  conclusive in determining  whether an

            assailant's disposition is  substandard.  We have held that a

            plaintiff may carry  his burden of proof in  two ways: either

                                         -4-
                                         -4-

            by  showing  that  the particular  assault  on  the plaintiff

            involved a dangerous  weapon, or by adducing  evidence of the

            assailant's "quarrelsome  nature"  in general.   Connolly  v.
                                                             ________

            Farrell Lines, Inc., 268 F.2d 653, 656 (1st Cir. 1959).  Ford
            ___________________

            presented evidence of both.  There is little doubt that Costa

            hit Ford with a dangerous weapon, namely, a thick wooden pole

            five or six feet long and tipped with metal.  The  jury heard

            testimony stating  that Costa was specifically  attempting to

            hit Rodrigues,  that he  swung with both  hands, and  did not

            check his swing.  Rodrigues  also testified that his head was

            at the same height as the point  where Ford's hip was struck.

            We do  not think the  jury would be irrational  in concluding

            that  this was  a  particularly  violent  act  that  revealed

            Costa's  disposition  to  be  unequal  to  that  of  ordinary

            sailors.

                 The jury  also heard  evidence of  Costa's penchant  for

            violence on other occasions.   Other seamen testified to  two

            physical fights that Costa  had instigated.  Costa  also once

            stated that  he would  kill another  crewmember, although  no

            violence  ensued.    A Steamship  Authority  captain  who had

            worked with  Costa testified that Costa had  a reputation for

            belligerence.     The  Steamship  Authority   countered  this

            evidence at  trial and  still disputes it,  but the  jury was

            entitled  to accept  the version  of the  facts  favorable to

            Ford.

                                         -5-
                                         -5-

                 Ford argues  that the appropriate comparison  of Costa's

            disposition  is not with ordinary sailors generally, but with

            ordinary  sailors employed by  the Steamship  Authority, whom

            Ford says are a  pacific and docile group.   Because it would

            not affect the outcome, we leave resolution of this issue for

            another  day.    Ford also  cross-appeals  on  two procedural

            issues  regarding,  respectively, the  Steamship  Authority's

            failure to renew  its motion for judgment as a  matter of law

            and untimely  filing of its notice of  appeal.  Both are moot

            in light of our ruling on the merits.

                 Affirmed.
                 ________

                                         -6-
                                         -6-