Case Name: Jerzelle M. Thomas v SHRM Catering Services, Inc.
Date of Judgment: 25^th March 2009                                                                        
Court: U.S.D.C. - E.D. Louisiana
Judge: District Judge Lemelle
Citation: 2009 WL 928640 (E.D.La.)

Background: Decedent Samuel Thomas was injured in the course of his employment as a Jones Act seaman. At the time, decedent was employed by SHRM as a steward/cook aboard the M/V Dixie Patriot ("vessel"), which provided cooking and cleaning services aboard the vessel. The vessel was operated by defendant D & C.

The injury occurred when decedent slipped and fell while descending the internal stairway between decks. He injured his leg and right ankle. His foot became swollen and he was transported ashore for medical treatment, where he was diagnosed with a heel fracture by Dr. Gidman, a company-chosen doctor. 

Three weeks later, Thomas selected his own doctor to perform surgery on his foot. Afterwards, decedent developed an infection, which continued to worsen until he passed away. The coroner listed the cause of death as cardia arrhythmia, sepsis, infection of the foot, and diabetes.

Plaintiff, Mr. Thomas's widow, alleged that decedent's right heel became infected during the surgery. She filed suit against defendants for damages arising out of her husband's death.

Plaintiff argued that SHRM breached its duty to provide a safe place to work through its failure to correct the allegedly dangerous stairway. Further, plaintiff stated that SHRM remained responsible for decedent's condition while he was in the care of his own doctor.

SHRM contended they did not breach a duty to provide a seaworthy vessel because it did not own or charter the vessel. Thus, they were not responsible for maintaining the area where decedent fell. Further, SHRM argued they provided adequate medical care, and all negligent treatment claims should be directed at decedent's chosen physician. SHRM moved for summary judgment.

Plaintiff then argued that D & C was liable for unseaworthiness and negligence because they did not correct the allegedly dangerous stairway.

D & C contended that the vessel was seaworthy. As evidence, they noted that there was non-skip tape and paint applied to the interior stairs where decedent fell. D & C argued that plaintiff failed to present evidence that demonstrated unseaworthy or dangerous conditions. They moved for summary judgment.

Issue: (1) Whether the Court will grant SHRM's motion for summary judgment and, (2) whether the Court will grant summary judgment for D & C.

Held:
SHRM did not have a duty to repair the allegedly dangerous stairway, but did have a duty to exercise reasonable care. This would include inspecting the vessel upon which its employees would be working.  Neither party presented evidence of whether this inspection occurred. As SHRM likely breached their duty to provide a safe place to work, their motion for summary judgment was denied.

The plaintiff's argument that SHRM remained liable for decedent, even after he chose another doctor, failed. Plaintiff did not allege any wrongdoing or negligence by SHRM regarding their original choice of doctor.  Thus, Plaintiff presented no evidence to support her claim that SHRM breached its duty to provide adequate medical care. The Court granted summary judgment with respect to this matter.

D & C acknowledged they were responsible for maintaining the vessel, but stated the vessel was seaworthy.  The Court held the plaintiff's various types of evidence were supported by deposition testimony. Thus, there were genuine issues of material fact and factual disputes which remained about the unseaworthiness. Thus, D & C's motion for summary judgment was denied.

Comments:

A Jones Act employer, such as SHRM, must provide its employees with a reasonably safe place to work. The duty of care owed by an employer under the Jones Act is to take reasonable steps to prevent accidents.

Negligence may arise through the employer's failure to inspect the vessel for hazards and failure to take reasonable precautions to protect a seaman from the defects. In the present case, SHRM failed to inspect the vessel to see what conditions their employees would be working in. Lack of knowledge is not a sufficient defense.

A shipowner has a duty to provide prompt and adequate medical care to its seamen.  The shipowner can be vicariously liable for the negligence of a physician it chooses to treat its seaman.  However, as in the current case, the seaman chose to select his own doctor. In that instance, the shipowner is no longer liable.

Steve Gordon
http://www.offshoreinjuries.com