Barge-Injured Seaman Requires More Proof for Jones Act Claim

Roulston v. Yazoo River Towing, Inc., 2006 WL 516808 (S.D. Miss. March 2, 2006)

Jonathan Lew, 2L, Roger Williams University School of Law

A federal district court in Mississippi recently decided that a seaman who is injured in the course of his employment on a boat that is not owned by his employer may succeed under a Jones Act claim1 only in limited circumstances. Recovery under the Jones Act is possible if the seaman’s injury was created by the employer or the employer should have discovered the dangerous condition through a reasonable inspection. Moreover, the court confirmed that a general claim of unseaworthiness failed because a seaman must prove that the employer has some ownership interest in the boat on which the seaman was injured.

Introduction
Joey Roulston was employed as a seaman by Yazoo River Towing, Inc. (Yazoo River). He was assigned to the Melvin L. King river towboat, which was owned and operated by Yazoo River, to pick up a tow of eight barges. When Roulston boarded one of the barges (ABS 1447 B) to secure it for towing, he fell into a manhole cover and severely injured his shoulder. Roulston filed a complaint under the Jones Act claiming that Yazoo River’s failure to provide a safe working environment caused his injuries. He sought maintenance and cure for his injuries and Yazoo River moved for summary judgment on all claims.2

Jones Act Negligence Claim
Roulston alleged that Yazoo River did not fulfill its general duty to ensure that an employee’s workplace is free from unreasonable danger. Yazoo River argued for summary judgment because Roulston failed to produce any evidence that Yazoo River had notice of the dangerous manhole. To overcome the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, Roulston had to prove that either the dangerous manhole was created by Yazoo River or Yazoo River should have been able to discover it with a reasonable inspection of the barge.

Yazoo River also argued for summary judgment because Roulston testified he was the only deckhand working that night, and as the sole deckhand it was his duty to inspect the barge. Moreover, Roulston acknowledged that it was not good practice to walk on manhole covers. But the court held that even though Roulston may have been partially negligent, Yazoo River is not absolved of its liability. The court would address these issues through an evidentiary hearing; and if Yazoo River was found to be negligent, a jury would have to determine the extent to which each party was responsible.

General Maritime Unseaworthiness Claim
Roulston further alleged that Yazoo River breached its duty to provide a seaworthy ship because every vessel owner owes all members of its crew a “duty to insure that the vessel is reasonably fit for its intended purpose.”3 But Roulston did not get injured on board the ship that his employer owned; rather, he was injured on board the ABS 1447 B. The court chose to adopt the standard found in Coakley v. SeaRiver Maritime, Inc., whereby the plaintiff must “establish that he was a seaman with regard to the vessel on which he sustained his injury.”4 Because Roulston did not produce any evidence that Yazoo River had any type of ownership interest in ABS 1447 B, the court granted summary judgment to Yazoo River on this claim.

Maintenance and Cure Claim `
Generally, if a seaman is injured while serving a ship, regardless of whether or not the shipowner was negligent, the owner must provide food, lodging, and medical services to the seaman until the “incapacity is declared to be permanent or…the employee has reached maximum medical recovery.”5 Here, Yazoo River claimed that it reached the maximum by paying maintenance to Roulston and cure to his medical providers until he was released. Roulston countered that Yazoo River arbitrarily discontinued his payments prematurely and his shoulder may still require additional medical treatment. Because neither party presented any further evidence to support their conflicting claims, the court denied summary judgment on this issue.

In addition to the claim for insufficient maintenance payments, Roulston requested compensation for future wages lost due to his injury. However, Roulston could not recover loss of future wages under his maintenance and cure claim because a maintenance and cure claim is limited in duration. Maintenance and cure is specifically for the period from the time the employee is injured until he has been pronounced as permanently injured or he has reached maximum medical improvement. The recovery is limited to that specific time period and it does not involve any future inability to work. Therefore, if Roulston seeks to recover lost future wages, he must pursue it under his negligence claim.

Conclusion
In summary, the court granted summary judgment to Yazoo River for Roulston’s general maritime unseaworthiness claim; denied summary judgment as to the maintenance and cure claim; and called for an evidentiary hearing to determine if Yazoo River negligently failed to inspect the ABS 1447 B.

Endnotes
1. The Jones Act provides that “[a]ny seaman who shall suffer injury in the course of his employment may, at his election, maintain an action for damages at law, with the right to trial by jury, and in such action all statutes of the United States modifying or extending the common-law right or remedy in cases of personal injury to railway employees shall apply….” 46 U.S.C. § 688(a).
2. The party moving for summary judgment must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
3. United New York & New Jersey Sandy Hook Pilots Assn. v. Halecki, 358 U.S. 613 (1959).
4. Coakley v. SeaRiver Mar., Inc., 319 F. Supp. 2d 712, 714 (E.D. La. 2004).
5. Vella v. Ford Motor Co., 421 U.S. 1 (1975).

University of Mississippi