Caldwell v. Manhattan Tankers Corp.
| Citation | 618 F.2d 361 |
| Decision Date | 09 July 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-3268,79-3268 |
| Parties | Artway CALDWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MANHATTAN TANKERS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. Summary Calendar. * |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
Morphy, Faulkner, Simpson & DiMaria, Robert L. Simpson, Metairie, La., for plaintiff-appellant.
Terriberry, Carroll, Yancey & Farrell, Robert J. Barbier, Andrew T. Martinez, New Orleans, La., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Before HILL, GARZA and THOMAS A. CLARK, Circuit Judges.
The appellant Artway Caldwell filed suit under the Jones Act seeking damages stemming from an alleged injury incurred while working aboard the Appellee's ship. The only evidence presented by the Appellant at his jury trial was his own testimony. After that testimony, the Appellant rested, and the Appellee sought a directed verdict which was granted. We affirm.
The Appellant was employed as a seaman aboard the S/S Manhattan on December 2, 1975. The S/S Manhattan was at that time docked in New Orleans, Louisiana, taking on a load of grain. The ship had just sailed from New York, having previously carried a load of oil. During its voyage from New York to New Orleans, a crew of men employed by an independent contractor had worked on cleaning the oil residue from the hold of the ship. After docking in New Orleans, the clean-up operation was apparently still being conducted.
At 11:45 p. m. on December 2, 1975, following the completion of his eight hour shift, the Appellant was relieved of his watch. After changing his shirt, he decided to go ashore to call his wife. According to the Appellant's testimony at trial, as he was descending the gangplank, he slipped and caught his foot on one of the gangplank runners. Fearing that he would fall between the ship and the dock, he threw himself from the gangplank to the dock, a distance of ten to eleven feet. The impact upon the dock caused injury to the Appellant's leg. The Appellant then instituted this Jones Act suit alleging negligence and unseaworthiness of the ship.
The Appellant never actually saw any grease on the gangplank, on his clothes or on his shoes. The Appellant also testified that, although the gangplank area was not lit, he was able to see where he was going. No one witnessed the accident. Caldwell also testified that he had never actually seen the clean-up crew using the gangplank.
When faced with a motion for directed verdict, the district court must examine the evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. McCullough v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 587 F.2d 754, 758 (5th Cir. 1979). If such facts and inferences point so clearly and overwhelmingly in favor of one party that the district court believes that reasonable minds could not arrive at a contrary verdict, the granting of the motion for directed verdict is in order. King v. Ford Motor Co., 597 F.2d 436, 439 (5th Cir. 1979); Boeing Co. v. Shipman, 411 F.2d 365, 374 (5th Cir. 1969) (en banc). This standard is utilized in claims alleging unseaworthiness. See Claborn v. Star Fish & Oyster Co., 578 F.2d 983, 987 (5th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 936, 99 S.Ct. 1281, 59 L.Ed.2d 494 (1979).
However, in Jones Act cases, a slightly different standard is applicable due to the fact that a Jones Act plaintiff's burden of proof is very minimal and has been referred to as "featherweight." See Davis v. Hill Engineering, Inc., 549 F.2d 314, 331 (5th Cir. 1977). The submission of such a case to a jury requires a very low evidentiary threshold and "even marginal claims are properly left for jury determination." Leonard v. Exxon Corp., 581 F.2d 522, 524 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 923, 99 S.Ct. 2032, 60 L.Ed.2d 397 (1979). Thus, it has been held that a directed verdict may only be granted in a Jones Act suit when there is a complete absence of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wallace v. Oceaneering Intern.
...LOUISIANA BRIMSTONE, 691 F.2d 217 (5th Cir.1982); Allen v. Seacoast Products, Inc., 623 F.2d 355 (5th Cir.1980); Caldwell v. Manhattan Tankers Corp., 618 F.2d 361 (5th Cir.1980). However, contrary to the contentions of Wallace, Zapata, and Cities Service, that extremely low evidentiary stan......
-
Springborn v. American Commercial Barge Lines, Inc.
...barge # 1819 was seaworthy. See, e.g., Robin v. Wilson Brothers Drilling, 719 F.2d 96, 98 (5th Cir.1983); Caldwell v. Manhattan Tankers Corp., 618 F.2d 361, 363 (5th Cir.1980). Although a vessel owner has an absolute duty to furnish a seaworthy vessel, Mitchell v. Trawler Racer, Inc., 362 U......
-
Joyce v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
...address Joyce's contentions regarding his unseaworthiness claims in light of the standards outlined above. Caldwell v. Manhatten Tankers Corp., 618 F.2d 361 (5th Cir. 1980). General maritime law imposes a duty upon shipowners to provide seaworthy vessels. Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger, ......
-
Guidry v. Continental Oil Co.
...were properly dismissed on directed verdict. Hebron v. Union Oil Co., 634 F.2d 245, 247 (5th Cir. 1981); Caldwell v. Manhattan Tankers Corp., 618 F.2d 361, 362-63 (5th Cir. 1980); Boeing Co. v. Shipman, 411 F.2d 365, 374-76 (5th Cir. 1969) (en With respect to Marlin, Guidry additionally arg......