Court Opinion

ID: 9485964
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 11:34:42.180158+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:51:27.933868
License: Public Domain

CUMMINGS, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
Even if the events leading up to Hughes’ accident are viewed in a light most favorable to ContiCarriers, the jury’s verdict cannot stand because at the time of Hughes’ accident the Cónti-KáRLA lacked a rope guard rail, and this condition .made it unseaworthy as a matter of .law. I therefore respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion.
It is well established that a missing safety device can make a ship unfit for its intended use and hence unseaworthy. Villers Sea Food Co., Inc. v. Vest, 813 F.2d 339, 342 (11th Cir.1987); Skipper v. Amerind Shipping Corp., 230 F.Supp. 253 (D.La.1964) (slack safety rope); Scarberry v. Ohio River Co., 217 F.Supp. 189 (D.W.Va.1963) (defective handrail). At the time of Hughes’ accident protective safety lines had not been in place for hours.. Furthermore, ContiCarriers never tried to justify why these lines were down when the Conti-KaRLA sailed from where it “fleeted” its barges to the oil dock. Undisputed testimony at trial established that the safety lines should have been raised once the Conti-KaRLA was underway. One witness implied that when a boat is on ‘a short refueling trip between tows it is not “underway” — but this is hair-splitting. The 1 majority hints that a towboat would be un-seaworthy if someone fell overboard when the boat was sailing and the safety lines were down for no reason. Therefore the critical question is whether it matters that Hughes’ accident occurred after the towboat arrived at the refueling dock.
In this case it should make no difference that Hughes fell overboard after the vessel had come to a stop. Once ContiCarriers breached a plain, undisputed duty to raise the safety line when the ship was underway, it should be held liable for injuries resulting from that breach until the safety defect was cured. The majority suggests that once the Conti-KaRLA moored against a dock, it was no longer unsafe to have the safety lines down. This is true for the dock-side line— but false for the river-side line that would have prevented Hughes’ fall. No witness suggested that the starboard (ie. river-side) line needed to be down for port-side refueling. This line should have been in position when Hughes fell because it should have been raised before the Conti-Kaela sailed to the dock. There are simply no facts that would allow a jury to find that the starboard line was properly down at the time of Hughes’ accident, or that the line’s lowered position did not cause his injuries. “[E]ven though the equipment furnished for [a] particular task is itself safe and sufficient, its misuse by the crew renders the vessel unsea-worthy.” Waldron v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc., 386 U.S. 724, 727, 87 S.Ct. 1410, 1412, 18 L.Ed.2d 482.
The Conti-Karla was unseaworthy as a matter of law because a vital safety device was missing from a hazardous deck area, and it would have prevented the injury if in place. Villers, 813 F.2d at 342; Comeaux v. T.L. James & Co., Inc., 666 F.2d 294, 299 (5th Cir.1982), modified 702 F.2d 1023; Oliveras v. American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc., 431 F.2d 814, 816 (2d Cir.1970); Gibbs v. Kiesel, 382 F.2d 917, 919 (5th Cir.1967). ContiCarriers should not avoid liability merely because its boat was docked at the time of the accident. Sweeney v. American Steamship Co., 491 F.2d 1085, 1089 (6th Cir.1974).
This result is supported by Villers, 813 F.2d at 339, which reviewed an unseaworthiness claim where pins designed to secure a ladder were removed, resulting in injury to the plaintiff when he climbed the ladder. The court granted the plaintiff judgment as a matter of law: “If a ship’s equipment breaks under normal use, the logical inference that follows is that the equipment was defective. * * * The same presumption arises when a safety device is removed from a ship’s equipment resulting in the type of accident which the safety device was designed to prevent.” Villers, 813 F.2d at 342. This means that Hughes is also entitled to judgment as' a matter of law, for here the safety lines were removed and this resulted in an accident which the lines were designed to prevent. Contrary to the majority’s view, Villers does not turn on a seaman’s knowledge of a defect that causes his injury. It does not matter that Hughes was trying to fix a defect whereas the Villers plaintiff was caught unaware, for ship owners may be held liable when *1201seamen attempt to repair a known defect that renders a vessel. unseaworthy. Co-meaux, 666 F.2d at 299.
The majority also argues that raising the Conti-KaRLa’s safety lines when the boat is docked is no more dangerous than raising the lines as soon as the faeewires are stowed on deck. While this may be true, it is irrelevant because Hughes would not have had to risk raising the starboard line if it had been properly in place when he began his watch. After today’s decision the sloppy practice of sailing to refuel with safety lines lowered is given a false imprimatur of economic rationality. For even if the isolated risks of raising the line in the morning or the afternoon are equivalent, the overall risks of one practice or the other are not the samé. When towboats sail with safety lines down, the risk of injury to the crew increases, and since it is no more costly to raise safety lines as soon as barges are fleeted, our rule should encourage behavior that produces less aggregate risk.
Finally, the majority suggests that Hughes’ own negligent acts led to his injury. This discussion serves to make today’s result appear more just, but it ignores admiralty’s maxim that “a seaman’s duty to protect himself is slight.” Ceja v. Mike Hooks, Inc., 690 F.2d 1191, 1193 (5th Cir.1982). The trial judge’s well-reasoned opinion granting Hughes judgment notwithstanding the verdict should be affirmed.