Broussard v. Marine Transport Lines, Inc.
| Citation | 369 F. Supp. 103 |
| Decision Date | 28 January 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. B-73-CA-160.,B-73-CA-160. |
| Parties | Morris BROUSSARD v. MARINE TRANSPORT LINES, INC. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas |
Charles B. Smallwood, Waldman & Smallwood, Beaumont, Tex., for plaintiff.
Hubert Oxford, III, Benckenstein, McNicholas, Ball, Oxford, Radford & Johnson, Beaumont, Tex., for defendant.
This is an action brought by a seaman under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C., Sec. 688, for personal injury damages in an amount not to exceed $95,000.00 and for maintenance. The plaintiff alleges in his complaint "that on or about February 21, 1971, he was returning to the vessel in the transportation furnished by defendant, when he was thrown from the pickup truck and suffered injuries to his left elbow, right arm, back and body." He further alleges that these injuries were attributed to "the negligence of the defendant, its master, officers and employees, and/or the unseaworthiness of the said vessel . . ."
The defendant moves for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and bases his motion on the pleadings and the deposition testimony of the plaintiff, Morris Broussard. The defendant's motion concerns only the plaintiff's negligence and unseaworthiness claims and not the claim for maintenance. The Court is of the opinion that there are no material facts in dispute and the matter is proper for a determination pursuant to Rule 56.
The facts of the case may be briefly stated as follows:
On February 21, 1971, the day that the plaintiff suffered his injuries, the S. S. MARINE CHEMIST was docked in Puerto Rico. While the plaintiff was off duty from the ship, he walked to the beach to go swimming. When he was through swimming, he and a couple other seamen were hitchhiking back to the ship and caught a ride on a pickup truck. The plaintiff fell off the back of the truck and was injured when it accelerated too fast. The plaintiff did not know who owned the truck, although he said he later heard that it may have been the Phillips Oil Company.
Authority need not be cited for the proposition that the doctrine of seaworthiness imposes the duty upon a shipowner to furnish a vessel and equipment that is reasonably fit for its intended use. This duty is nondelegable and absolute. However, in the case at bar, there has been no evidence advanced by the plaintiff that would support a claim that the S. S. MARINE CHEMIST was unseaworthy. See Dangovich v. Isthmian Lines, Inc., 218 F.Supp. 235, 236 (S.D.N.Y.1963); D'Costa v. United States Lines Company, 227 F.Supp. 180, 181 (S.D.N.Y.1964). Therefore, the Court concludes that the vessel, its equipment and appurtenances were in seaworthy condition on the date of the plaintiff's injury.
The Court is convinced that the plaintiff's Jones Act negligence claim is equally untenable. While it is true that seamen have long been treated as wards of the admiralty courts, see Cortes v. Baltimore Insular Line, 287 U.S. 367, 377, 53 S.Ct. 173, 77 L.Ed. 368 (1932), it is also true that the shipowner is not liable for any and all of the injuries that befall them. Paul v. United States, 205 F.2d 38 (3d Cir. 1953).
The initial inquiry for this Court is whether the plaintiff was in the "course of employment" on the occasion in question. In Braen v. Pfeifer Oil Transportation Co., 361 U.S. 129, 80 S.Ct. 247, 4 L.Ed.2d 191 (1959), the Supreme Court said that the term "course of employment", as used in the Jones Act, is the equivalent of "service of the ship" in maintenance and cure cases. Under the facts of the instant case, the Court finds that the plaintiff was in the course of his employment on February 21, 1971.
Even though the Court finds that the plaintiff was in the course of his employment, he must still prove that his injury was caused by the negligence of the shipowner, its officers or employees. Courts have consistently held that the shipowner is under no duty to provide a safe means of transportation between the ship and the place of the seaman's amusement. Thurnau v. Alcoa Steamship Company, Inc., 229 F.2d 73 (2d Cir. 1956); Paul v. United States, supra; Lemon v. United States, 68 F. Supp. 793 (D.Md.1946). Likewise, the shipowner is under no duty to warn seamen of dangerous conditions over which they have no control that exist beyond the ship's gangway. See Trost v. American...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Szopko v. Kinsman Marine Transit Co., Docket No. 74646
...1951), aff'd 205 F.2d 354 (C.A.2, 1953), cert. den. 346 U.S. 889, 74 S.Ct. 141, 98 L.Ed. 393 (1953); Broussard v. Marine Transport Lines, Inc., 369 F.Supp. 103 (E.D.Tex., 1974); Dangovich v. Isthmian Lines, Inc., 218 F.Supp. 235 (S.D.N.Y., 1963), aff'd 327 F.2d 355 (C.A.2, 1964); Ugarte v. ......
-
Wilkerson v. Teledyne Movible Offshore, Inc.
...503 F.2d 29, 34 (2d Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1110, 95 S.Ct. 785, 42 L.Ed.2d 807 (1975); Broussard v. Marine Transport Line, Inc., 369 F.Supp. 103, 105 (E.D.Tex.1974). The Plaintiff claims that the mud-filled mats rendered Rig 4 unseaworthy. It is clear, however, that Rig 4 is not ......
-
Thomas v. Grigorescu
...Co., 435 F.2d 732, 736 (6th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 963, 91 S.Ct. 990, 28 L.Ed.2d 247 (1971); Broussard v. Marine Transport Lines, Inc., 369 F.Supp. 103, 105 (E.D.Tx.1974). No such contract existed Plaintiff Simmons states in his affidavit that he thinks the railroad might have r......
-
Bush v. Metro-North Commuter R.R. Co.
...[the hospital] would act on its behalf," no agency relationship was formed. Id. Similarly, the court in Broussard v. Marine Transport Lines, Inc., 369 F.Supp. 103 (E.D. Tex. 1974), held that a shipowner was not liable for the negligence of a truck driver, in part, because, unlike in Hopson ......