Ford v. Woods Hole ( 1998 )

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 97-1776
JOHN FORD,
Plaintiff, Appellee,
v.
WOODS HOLE, MARTHA'S VINEYARD AND
NANTUCKET STEAMSHIP AUTHORITY,
Defendant, Appellant.
No. 97-2007
JOHN FORD,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
WOODS HOLE, MARTHA'S VINEYARD AND
NANTUCKET STEAMSHIP AUTHORITY,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FROM THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Joseph L. Tauro, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Selya, Boudin, and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
Thomas E. Clinton with whom Clinton & Muzyka, P.C. was on brief
for defendant.
David F. Anderson with whom Latti Associates LLP was on brief for
plaintiff.
February 20, 1998
Per Curiam. The Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard and
Nantucket Steamship Authority ("the Steamship Authority")
appeals from a jury verdict awarding damages to John Ford.
Ford was an able bodied seaman employed on the Steamship
Authority's M/V Eagle, a passenger and car ferry operating
between Hyannis and Nantucket, Massachusetts. On the day of
Ford's misfortune, February 24, 1995, the Eagle was laid up
for general maintenance in Woods Hole, Massachusetts.
The drama began when one of Ford's fellow seamen, Byron
Costa, approached a paint trailer on the pier next to the
ship. Danny Pryor, the ship's boatswain and Costa's brother-
in-law, was with him. Costa was holding a "manhelper," a
long wooden pole with a metallic tip, designed to connect to
a paint roller to increase a painter's reach. Inside the
paint trailer, another seaman named Serephine Rodrigues was
responsible for distributing tools and mixing paint for use
in maintenance tasks. Costa asked Rodrigues to mix him some
epoxy paint; Rodrigues refused, citing his instructions that
he was only to issue oil-based paints. A quarrel ensued, and
Rodrigues eventually acceded to Costa's demands and began
mixing the epoxy paint.
While Rodrigues was at work, Costa continued to argue
with him. At some point, Rodrigues became frustrated and
told Costa to "leave me alone" and "get back in the boat."
Rodrigues also threw a light rag, which hit Costa in the head
-2-
-2-
and slipped off. Costa swung the manhelper back with both
hands and then forward in Rodrigues's direction.
Prior to this moment, Ford had approached the trailer to
return some tools. While inside the trailer, he heard the
altercation escalate and "knew something was going to pop."
Ford emerged from the trailer just as Costa swung the
manhelper at Rodrigues. The manhelper struck Ford in the hip
and then glanced off Rodrigues's hand, which had been raised
to ward off the blow. Ford has been seriously disabled by
the resulting injury.
Ford sued the Steamship Authority in the district court,
alleging negligence under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. 688,
unseaworthiness, and an entitlement to maintenance and cure
under general maritime law.1 On October 28, 1996, a jury
awarded Ford $740,000 for negligence and unseaworthiness,
prejudgment interest at a rate of 6% (totaling $57,172.60),
and $23,000 for maintenance and cure. The district court
entered judgment on the verdict on November 26, and amended
1Both parties assume that the latter two claims fall
under the admiralty jurisdiction of the federal courts. It
is not entirely clear that they satisfy the "location test"
of admiralty jurisdiction, namely, that the injury "occurred
on navigable water or . . . injury suffered on land was
caused by a vessel on navigable water." Jerome B. Grubart,
Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527, 534
(1995). But Ford's claim under the Jones Act provides
federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331, so the
other claims fall within the court's pendent jurisdiction.
See Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co., 358 U.S.
354, 380-81 (1959).
-3-
-3-
the judgment on May 1, 1997, after the Steamship Authority
pointed out a mathematical error.
The Steamship Authority now appeals the verdict of
unseaworthiness and negligence. At oral argument, the
Steamship Authority correctly conceded that the verdict may
be reversed only if the jury could not reasonably have found
for Ford on either theory. Because we find that the verdict
of unseaworthiness is supported by the record, we do not
address the issue of Jones Act negligence, which involves the
separate question whether the Steamship Authority was on
notice of Costa's proclivity for violence.
It is common ground that a vessel owner may be found in
breach of the warranty of seaworthiness if one seaman is
assaulted by another. Boudoin v. Lykes Bros. S.S. Co., 348
U.S. 336, 338-39 (1955). The decisive question is whether
the assaulting seaman was "equal in disposition and
seamanship to the ordinary men in the calling." Id. at 338
(quoting Keen v. Overseas Tankship Corp., 194 F.2d 515, 518
(2d Cir. 1952)). Our limited task on appeal is to determine
whether Ford presented enough evidence so that a rational
jury could conclude that Costa was worse in disposition than
the ordinary seaman.
No one factor is conclusive in determining whether an
assailant's disposition is substandard. We have held that a
plaintiff may carry his burden of proof in two ways: either
-4-
-4-
by showing that the particular assault on the plaintiff
involved a dangerous weapon, or by adducing evidence of the
assailant's "quarrelsome nature" in general. Connolly v.
Farrell Lines, Inc., 268 F.2d 653, 656 (1st Cir. 1959). Ford
presented evidence of both. There is little doubt that Costa
hit Ford with a dangerous weapon, namely, a thick wooden pole
five or six feet long and tipped with metal. The jury heard
testimony stating that Costa was specifically attempting to
hit Rodrigues, that he swung with both hands, and did not
check his swing. Rodrigues also testified that his head was
at the same height as the point where Ford's hip was struck.
We do not think the jury would be irrational in concluding
that this was a particularly violent act that revealed
Costa's disposition to be unequal to that of ordinary
sailors.
The jury also heard evidence of Costa's penchant for
violence on other occasions. Other seamen testified to two
physical fights that Costa had instigated. Costa also once
stated that he would kill another crewmember, although no
violence ensued. A Steamship Authority captain who had
worked with Costa testified that Costa had a reputation for
belligerence. The Steamship Authority countered this
evidence at trial and still disputes it, but the jury was
entitled to accept the version of the facts favorable to
Ford.
-5-
-5-
Ford argues that the appropriate comparison of Costa's
disposition is not with ordinary sailors generally, but with
ordinary sailors employed by the Steamship Authority, whom
Ford says are a pacific and docile group. Because it would
not affect the outcome, we leave resolution of this issue for
another day. Ford also cross-appeals on two procedural
issues regarding, respectively, the Steamship Authority's
failure to renew its motion for judgment as a matter of law
and untimely filing of its notice of appeal. Both are moot
in light of our ruling on the merits.
Affirmed.
-6-
-6-