Patterson v. Allseas USA, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 8, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
04-40949
EDDIE PATTERSON,
Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee,
Versus
ALLSEAS USA, INC., ET AL,
Defendants,
ALLSEAS MARINE CONTRACTORS SA,
Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas, Lufkin Division
No. 9:02-CV-175
Before DAVIS, STEWART, and DENNIS Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Defendant Allseas Marine Contractors SA (“AMC”) appeals the
judgment of the district court awarding the plaintiff Eddie
Patterson (“Patterson”) damages for injuries he sustained while
working for AMC as a superintendent aboard the pipe-laying vessel
LORELAY. After a bench trial, the district court found that one
1
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
-1-
of Patterson’s subordinates was negligent for failing to warn
Patterson of the dangers of traversing a stairway with wet boots.
Because we find that AMC’s employee had no duty to warn Patterson
under the facts of this case, we REVERSE the judgment of the
district court and render judgment for AMC.
I.
Patterson began working for AMC in September 1997 as a
superintendent aboard the SOLITAIRE, the largest pipe-laying
vessel in the world. In October 1999, Patterson was transferred
to the LORELAY.2 As superintendent aboard the LORELAY, Patterson
was one of the highest ranking members of the ship’s crew,
answering only to the captain. He controlled all aspects of pipe
construction and pipe-laying aboard the LORELAY, and supervised
approximately 75% of the vessel’s four hundred crew members.3
Patterson was also a member of the Vessel Management Team, which
is responsible for the safety of the ship, as well as the
LORELAY’s Safety, Health, and Environmental Committee (“SHEC”),
whose duties include touring the ship to look for potential
safety hazards.
On July 12, 2000, pursuant to his duties as a member of the
2
The LORELAY is a “Panamanian flagged pipe-laying vessel”
constructed in 1974 as a bulk cargo vessel and converted into a
pipe-laying vessel in 1986. R. 579.
3
The district court further explained that the position of
superintendent is “highly specialized,” and that the “degree of
experience required for this position qualifies approximately
fifty people in the world for this position.” R. 580.
-2-
SHEC, Patterson, along with the captain and safety
representatives from the contracting oil company, conducted a
safety tour of the LORELAY. The group inspected the vessel’s
stern deck, which required the group to ascend the starboard
crossover stairway. According to the district court, this
stairway is identical to the port crossover stairway, the
location of the accident giving rise to this lawsuit. During the
inspection, Patterson noticed standing water on the port
crossover deck, and made a note to check it out later that day.
Shortly after the tour concluded, Patterson and one of his
subordinates, Jerry Williamson(“Williamson”), a barge foreman,
decided to inspect the standing water on the port crossover deck.
To access the crossover deck, the pair used the port stairway.
The port stairway on the LORELAY goes from the main deck up 6.19
meters to the crossover deck at an angle of approximately 60-65
degrees. The stairway is 0.6 meters wide, and was originally
constructed with uninterrupted handrails on both sides. Some
time after the crossover structure was installed in 1999,
however, and before the date of the accident, a portion of the
outboard handrail was removed to allow access from the stairway
to the outrigger deck.4 The entrance to the outrigger deck is
located approximately 2.7 meters above the main deck. The
inboard handrail was not altered and extends uninterrupted from
4
The outrigger deck is a “storage deck located forward of
the crossover structure.” R. 593.
-3-
the bottom to the top of the stairway.
Patterson and Williamson ascended the stairway without
incident and arrived at the standing water on the crossover deck.
Patterson instructed Williamson to drill drainage holes in the
steel deck so the water would drain and thereby avoid a safety
hazard. Both men walked into the standing water to determine
exactly where to drill the drainage holes.
Without drying their dripping wet boots, Patterson and
Williamson began descending the port stairway with Williamson in
the lead and Patterson following, both facing away from the
stairway. Patterson did not use either handrail to aid his
descent; Williamson used the inboard handrail. About halfway
down, Patterson slipped and fell into Williamson. Williamson
kept hold of the handrail, remained on the stairway, and
prevented the pair from falling down the stairs.
After the fall, Patterson went to see the ship’s medic and
complained of back pain. He soon left the LORELAY and sought
treatment from Dr. John P. Sikors, a chiropractor who had treated
him in the past. Dr. Sikors testified that, although Patterson
had experienced significant back problems in the past, his back
pain following the July 2000 fall was significantly worse than
before. Dr. Sikors referred Patterson to Dr. Andrew Dosset, an
orthopedic surgeon, who performed surgery on Patterson. Dr.
Charles Gordon, Patterson’s neurosurgeon, also performed three
back surgeries on Patterson after his July 2000 fall.
-4-
Patterson filed suit against Allseas USA, Inc., Allseas
Marine Services, NV, and AMC, under the Jones Act (46 U.S.C. §
688) and general maritime law. He also asserted an in rem action
against the LORELAY.
At trial, Patterson argued that his injuries were caused by
AMC’s negligence in the construction and maintenance of the port
crossover deck and stairway of the LORELAY, where he sustained
his injuries. He also argued that the dangerous condition of the
port crossover deck and stairway rendered the LORELAY
unseaworthy.
After a three day bench trial, the district court held that
Patterson’s claims of unseaworthiness and Jones Act negligence
were properly asserted against only AMC and the LORELAY.5 The
court dismissed Patterson’s unseaworthiness claim entirely. The
court found that the water on the crossover deck was not
unusually slippery or dangerous and not unusual for a vessel on
the high seas.
The court also found that the condition of the port stairway
5
Allseas Marine Services NV is an agent of AMC and provides
personnel services for AMC. Allseas Services USA is also an
agent of AMC and contracts with AMC to provide written procedures
and conducts safety briefings for the LORELAY. The district
court held that Patterson could only assert a claim under the
Jones Act against his employer, AMC. The court also held that
Patterson’s claim that the LORELAY was unseaworthy was only
properly brought against the ship and the shipowner, which was
also AMC. Therefore, the court dismissed all parties except AMC
and the LORELAY. Neither party challenges this aspect of the
judgment on appeal.
-5-
did not render the LORELAY unseaworthy. Even assuming that
Patterson fell in the vicinity of where the stairway was missing
a handrail on the outboard side, the court found, the stairway
was narrow enough for him to support his descent with his other
hand. The court acknowledged that it was common practice for
seamen to use one hand to support their descent and the other to
carry supplies, making the presence of an interrupted handrail on
both sides of the stairway unnecessary for safe passage.
In addition, the court found that the tread on the steps of
the port stairway were not excessively worn at the time of the
accident. The court found that although the stairway treads
reflected use and some wear and tear they were not so worn as to
create a dangerous condition. The court found it significant
that Williamson kept his footing on the stairway despite
Patterson falling into him.6
The district court next addressed whether Patterson could
recover under the Jones Act. The court found that, essentially
for the reasons stated in denying recovery predicated on
unseaworthiness, AMC was not negligent in designing,
constructing, or maintaining the port crossover deck and
stairway. The court found that workmen frequently traveled from
the port crossover deck down the port stairway without incident,
6
The district court also credited the testimony of Hank van
Hemmen, AMC’s expert, who testified that the wear on the stairway
tread was not excessive and still capable of providing adequate
traction.
-6-
which supported its conclusion that AMC exercised ordinary
prudence in maintaining these areas.
The court, after rejecting plaintiff’s claim against AMC on
the predicates of liability discussed above, imposed liability
against AMC on a single ground: failure to warn. The court found
that Williamson, as the LORELAY’s barge foreman, had a “very
high duty with regard to safety,” frequently worked on the port
side of the LORELAY, and should have warned Patterson of the
dangers associated with descending the port stairway with wet
boots. The court held that, as Williamson’s employer, AMC was
vicariously liable for Williamson’s negligence.
The court also found that Patterson had satisfied his burden
of showing that Williamson’s failure to warn caused his injuries.
Although Patterson’s evidence regarding causation was weakened by
the fact that he misled his treating physicians regarding his
medical history, the court stated, it was sufficient to satisfy
the “featherweight” standard for causation under the Jones Act.
The district court reduced its judgment against AMC by 65%
for Patterson’s comparative fault. The court found that seamen
should understand the dangers associated with working in wet
boots, and that Patterson admitted that “standing water presents
a hazard.”7 Despite knowing this, the court stated, Patterson
needlessly and intentionally walked into the puddle, and, without
7
Rawle 604.
-7-
drying his boots, attempted to descend the stairway without
holding onto the handrail. In doing so, the court found that
“Patterson descended the stairway with less caution than a
reasonably prudent seaman.”8 The district court assessed damages
against AMC in the amount of $1,051,457.80, which resulted in
Patterson recovering $368,010.23 after accounting for his
comparative fault. AMC timely appealed.
II.
AMC’s principal argument on appeal is that the district
court erred in concluding that Williamson had a duty to warn
Patterson of the dangers associated with descending the port
stairway with wet boots. AMC argues that, under the Jones Act, a
shipowner only has a duty to warn seamen of “dangers not
reasonably known” and cannot be liable for failing to warn of an
“open and obvious danger.”
Patterson does not argue that AMC misstates the standard for
determining whether a duty to warn arose under the facts of this
case. Rather, he argues that, because of the condition of the
port stairway, the perils associated with descending the stairway
with wet boots were neither open nor obvious. AMC contends that
Patterson’s argument and the district court’s conclusion that
Williamson had a duty to warn contradict the court’s finding that
8
Rawle 604.
-8-
(1) the port stairway was not unreasonably dangerous; and (2) the
dangers associated with descending the port stairway with wet
boots were “reasonably known” to Patterson.
A shipowner in a Jones Act case has a duty to warn his
employees “in an effective way of dangers not reasonably known.”9
In other words, shipowners need not warn seamen of dangers that
are “open and obvious.”10
Based on the district court’s finding that the dangers
associated with descending the port stairway with wet boots were
“reasonably known” to Patterson, Williamson had no duty to warn
Patterson in this case. The record fully supports the district
court’s finding that Patterson should have known of the dangers
associated with descending a stairway in wet boots. Patterson,
who was Williamson’s superior, was the main safety official under
the captain and was intimately familiar with the LORELAY.
Earlier that day Patterson led a safety team up and down a
stairway that the court found was identical to the port stairway.
Therefore, based on the district court’s findings, the only
difference between Patterson’s descent of the port stairway on
the date of the accident and his routine use of stairways on the
LORELAY was that he descended the port stairway with wet boots.
9
Davis v. Parkhill-Goodloe Co., Inc., 302 F.2d 489, 494 (5th
Cir. 1962); Verrett v. McDonough Marine Service, 705 F.2d 1437
(5th Cir. 1983)(shipowner’s duty to warn seaman arises from
shipowner’s being charged with his employee’s lack of knowledge).
10
Farrel v. United States, 167 F.2d 781, 783 (2d Cir. 1948).
-9-
As the court found, however, Patterson should have known
that wet boots presented a potential hazard. Nothing Williamson
knew or could have told Patterson regarding the dangers of
descending the stairway in wet boots would have armed Patterson
with any more knowledge than he had when he walked out of the
standing water toward the stairway. Therefore, the district
court erred in concluding that Williamson owed a duty to
Patterson to warn him of this known danger and consequently erred
in finding Williamson negligent.
III.
For the reasons stated above, the district court erred as a
matter of law in finding that Williamson was negligent and that
AMC was vicariously liable for Williamson’s negligence. We
therefore REVERSE the judgment of the district court in favor of
Patterson and render judgment in favor of AMC.
REVERSED.
RENDERED.
-10-