Court Opinion

ID: 9446909
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 22:21:03.246967+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:49.459039
License: Public Domain

SHACKELFORD MILLER, JR., Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I am not in agreement with the ruling of the majority opinion which affirms the judgment on the basis of negligence on the part of the appellant.
The ruling of the majority opinion is based upon the fact that in answer to interrogatory No. I, the jury found that the appellant was negligent, and upon the Court’s conclusion that there was sufficient evidence to take to the jury the issue of whether there was a slippery substance on the stairway when the ap-pellee started down and whether the stairway on which the appellee fell was *645insufficiently lighted at the time of the accident. The opinion thereupon concludes that the jury’s answers to interrogatories No. Ill and No. IV, namely, that the appellee slipped upon a foreign, slippery substance on the ladder and that the ladder was not sufficiently lighted, must be accepted and support the finding of negligence.
I agree that the answers to interrogatories No. Ill and No. IV must be accepted on this review, but I do not agree that a ruling of actionable negligence can be based upon these findings.
I think the majority opinion is in error in construing these answers as a finding by the jury that the appellant was negligent because there was a foreign, slippery substance on the ladder or because the ladder was not sufficiently lighted. The jury did not find that negligence existed because of either of those reasons. On the contrary, it specifically found by its answer to interrogatory No. II that the appellant was negligent because it “failed to thoroughly inspect ship before ordering men aboard.” (Emphasis added.) In explaining this interrogatory to the jury, the District Judge told the jury, “There you will have to give whatever your answer would be, whichever one of these four specifications of negligence you thought had been proved, whether it be one, whether it be all, that would be the place in which you would answer if your answer to the first question is ‘yes’.” (Emphasis added.) The answer must necessarily be construed that the jury found negligence to exist for one reason, and that reason only, namely, failure to thoroughly inspect the ship before ordering the men aboard.
Liability based upon negligence cannot independently result from the jury’s answers to interrogatory No. Ill that the appellee slipped upon a foreign, slippery substance on the ladder, or from its answer to interrogatory No. IV that the ladder was not sufficiently lighted.
The fact that the appellee slipped on a foreign, slippery substance on the ladder does not constitute actionable negligence. Other facts must also exist showing knowledge on the part of the appellant of the presence of the foreign substance, or reasonable opportunity to know about it. The jury was so instructed by the District Judge. The jury’s answer to interrogatory No. II is a clear indication that it did not find these other facts to exist.
The fact that the ladder was not sufficiently lighted at the time of the accident does not by itself constitute actionable negligence. The vital question with respect to negligence as distinguished from unseaworthiness is why was it insufficiently lighted at that time. The evidence shows reasons why it was insufficiently lighted at the time of the accident. The isolated fact that it was not sufficiently lighted, without an additional finding that this condition was due to the fault of appellant, is not a finding of negligence.
I am accordingly of the opinion that the findings of fact by the jury in its answers to interrogatories No. Ill and No. IV are relevant only to the issue of unseaworthiness, which was also an issue submitted to them, and that a ruling of actionable negligence cannot be based upon them.
With respect to the jury’s answer to interrogatory No. II that appellant was negligent because it failed to thoroughly inspect ship before ordering men aboard, I find no evidence in the record whatsoever to support this finding. The evidence did not deal with the inspection of the boat before ordering the men aboard. I do not read the majority opinion as attempting to sustain that finding. With that finding set aside, answer to interrogatory No. I has nothing to support it, is inconsistent with interrogatory No. II, and a verdict cannot be based upon it. Rule 49(b), Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.; Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Salazar, 5 Cir., 254 F.2d 847. See also: Welch v. Bauer, 5 Cir., 186 F.2d 1002; Golden North Airways v. Tanana Publishing Co., 9 Cir., 218 F.2d 612, 618.
*646Since the judgment of the District Court will necessarily be affirmed on the majority opinion’s holding of actionable negligence, it is unnecessary to discuss appellant’s contentions with respect to the issue of unseaworthiness.