Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
___________________________
No. 00-40173
___________________________
JAMES A. JACKSON, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellee / Cross-Appellant,
VERSUS
OMI CORPORATION, et al,
Defendants,
OMI COURIER TRANSPORT, INC.,
Defendant-Appellant / Cross-Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
April 4, 2001
Before JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI, Judge*.
W. EUGENE DAVIS, Circuit Judge.
Following a bench trial, OMI Courier Transport, Inc. ("OMI") was found liable for injuries
sustained by Plaintiff Jackson on the basis that its vessel the OMI Courier was unseaworthy and that
it was negligent. OMI appeals that decision and the district court's allocation of only 50%
* Judge of the U.S. Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.
1

contributory negligence to Jackson. Jackson also appeals the allocation of contributory negligence.
Because the record does not support the finding that the vessel OMI Courier was unseaworthy or
that OMI was negligent, we REVERSE.
I.
Plaintiff Jackson was chief steward aboard the OMI Courier and, although he was new to the
Courier, had 35 years of seagoing experience. On March 3, 1998, while the vessel was en route to
Mobile, Alabama, Jackson sought out the bosun to discuss an assignment he had received from the
Captain that he felt interfered with other duties that needed his immediate attention. While going
from the galley to the weather or work deck, he attempted to pass through a doorway and tripped
or lost his balance and fell, sustaining injuries that are the basis of this lawsuit. The parties do not
dispute that Jackson is a seaman, that the accident occurred or that Jackson was injured in the
accident. The district court, after a full bench trial, found that Jackson's injuries were proximately
caused by the negligence of OMI and the unseaworthiness of the vessel Courier. The court awarded
damages of $227,629.34 after reduction for Jackson's 50% contributory negligence, together with
pre- and post-judgment interest.
The Door
The door through which Jackson was attempting to pass had an opening approximately 5 feet
high by 3 feet wide. The bottom edge of the doorway was not level with the deck, but raised to
create a coaming. A co aming at least 15 inches above the deck is required by Coast Guard
regulations to prevent water from flooding from the forward work deck to the accommodation area
of the deck. At its highest point, the coaming on this doorway extended 17 3/4 inches above the
deck. This was the highest point over which someone would have to step while traversing the
2

doorway. When approaching the door from the interior space of the vessel to reach the outer deck,
the first structure encountered is a horizontal stiffener which is approximately 11 inches above the
deck and extends 10 inches from the face of the door. The structure of the door also includes
vertical steel stiffeners on either side of the doorway which, like the horizontal stiffener, extend
approximately 10 inches from the door. Inside these vertical stiffeners, there is a 3/4 inch thick wall
surface that projects 5 inches toward the opening of the door.
Photos demonstrate and expert testimony indicates that a crew member going through the
doorway could step completely over the stiffener and the coaming to the outer deck (a distance of
approximately 12 inches). Alternatively, one could step on the stiffener, using it as a step, and then
step over the remaining height of the coaming onto the deck. Whichever method was chosen, the
vertical steel stiffeners as well as the edge of the doorway itself are available to use as steadying
points.
Jackson's Fall
Jackson fell as he was attempting to pass through the doorway. As he described the events,
as his forward foot touched the deck he was already losing his balance. His hand slipped from its grip
on the edge of the doorway and his trailing foot hit the coaming. He thought that his forward foot
may have come into contact with "something." Although the deck may have been wet from the
butterworthing operations that were being conducted at that time, no evidence was produced that oil
or other slippery substances were present in the area of the doorway. Nor does the record contain
any evidence of any hoses or other equipment on the forward side of the doorway that might account
for the "something" that Jackson thinks he stepped on. Two crew members who witnessed the
accident testified that Jackson just stumbled over the coaming as a result of not picking his feet up
3

high enough. At the time of the accident, the weather was clear and the seas were flat.
II.
For a vessel to be found unseaworthy, the injured seaman must prove that the owner has failed
to provide a vessel, including her equipment and crew, which is reasonably fit and safe for the
purposes for which it is to be used. Gutierrez v. Watterman S.S. Corp., 373 U.S. 206 (1963);
Bowser v. Lloyd Brasileiro S.S. Corp., 417 F.2d 779 (5th Cir. 1969). In addition, the plaintiff must
establish a causal co nnection between his injury and the breach of duty that rendered the vessel
unseaworthy. Caldwell v. Manhattan Tankers Corp., 618 F.2d 361, 363 (5th Cir. 1980). The
standard of care for a Jones Act seaman is to act as an ordinarily prudent seaman would act in like
circumstances. Gautreaux v. Scurlock Marine, Inc., 107 F.3d 331, 339 (5th Cir. 1997). Findings
of the district court on the issues of unseaworthiness and negligence are findings of facts, which we
will uphold unless clearly erroneous. McAllister v. United States, 348 U.S. 19, 20 (1954). A finding
is clearly erroneous when, after studying the record, the reviewing court is left with the "definite and
firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Id.
The District Court found that the vessel was unseaworthy for lack of a handhold at the
doorway where Jackson's accident occurred. We have scoured the record without success for factual
support for this finding. The design of the doorway in question was dictated by federal regulations
requiring a coaming of at least 15 inches in height. Uncontested expert testimony established that
height of the doorway at 17 3/4 inches was common. The defendant's expert, Mr. Penn Johnson,
testified that a person transiting the door was required, at a minimum, to observe the common sense
precaution of holding onto the side of the door opening or one of the parallel stiffening members
which run alongside the height of the door. He also testified that it is not customary to equip doors
4

of this nature with handholds such as the district court's opinion seems to require. The record
contains no evidence where such a handrail might be placed or that the installation of a handrail would
reduce accident rates. The record is uncontroverted that crew members passing through the doorway
can use the usual structural members ordinarily found on vessel passageways as steadying points.
This was confirmed by other crew members who testified that they used the sides of the door in this
manner and they had no problems traversing the doorway. All the evidence, including Mr. Jackson's
own testimony, points to the conclusion that Mr. Jackson simply tripped over the coaming. Based
on our review of the record, we conclude that the district court's judgment that the OMI Courier, and
specifically the doorway at which Mr. Jackson's accident occurred, was not reasonably fit and safe
for its intended use is clearly erroneous. On the same record, the district court's judgment that OMI
was negligent in failing to provide a safe place to work is also clearly erroneous.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the district court's findings that the OMI Courier was
unseaworthy and that OMI was negligent are clearly erroneous. We therefore reverse the judgment
of the district court and render judgment in favor of OMI.
REVERSED and RENDERED.
5