Opinion
NUMBER 2018 CA 0991
02-25-2019
ROBERT JEFFERSON v. INTERNATIONAL MARINE, LLC
E. Byrne Edwards Lafayette, LA Attorney for Appellee Plaintiff - Robert Jefferson Wilton E. Bland, III Adam P. Sanderson Trevor M. Cutaiar New Orleans, LA Attorneys for Appellant Defendant - International Marine, LLC
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
Appealed from the 19th Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Trial Court Number 621251 Honorable Todd W. Hernandez, Judge E. Byrne Edwards
Lafayette, LA Attorney for Appellee
Plaintiff - Robert Jefferson Wilton E. Bland, III
Adam P. Sanderson
Trevor M. Cutaiar
New Orleans, LA Attorneys for Appellant
Defendant - International Marine,
LLC BEFORE: WELCH, CHUTZ, AND LANIER, JJ. WELCH, J.
International Marine, LLC ("International") appeals a partial final judgment on the issue of liability in favor of the plaintiff, Robert Jefferson. For reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and issue this memorandum opinion in compliance with Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-16.1(B).
See La. C.C.P. art. 1915.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Jefferson filed a petition seeking damages from International for injuries that he sustained as the result of an accident that occurred on May 3, 2012. At the time, Mr. Jefferson was employed by General Fabricators, Inc. ("General Fabricators") and was being transported as a passenger on a supply vessel owned and operated by International from an offshore drilling platform to the living quarters platform. Mr. Jefferson alleged that he was standing on the deck of the vessel waiting for a personnel basket to be lowered from the platform to the deck of the vessel when he stepped back into a gap caused by a missing deck board, fell, and sustained injuries. In response, International maintained that Mr. Jefferson's injuries from the accident were the result of his own fault and neglect. More specifically, International claimed that the gap caused by the missing deck board was a readily apparent, open and obvious condition; thus, it was not liable for Mr. Jefferson's injuries.
For additional background information concerning International's claims against the owner of the drilling platform, McMoRan Oil & Gas, LLC, see Jefferson v. International Marine, LLC, 2016-0472 (La. App. 1st Cir. 7/5/17), 224 So.3d 50, writ denied, 2017-1369 (La. 11/6/17), 229 So.3d 475.
International subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment seeking the dismissal of Mr. Jefferson's claims against it on the basis that the gap caused by the missing deck board was open and obvious. Mr. Jefferson likewise filed a motion for partial summary judgment seeking a judgment in his favor on the issue of liability and/or comparative fault. Initially, the trial court denied both motions for summary judgment. Thereafter, the parties filed into the record a joint stipulation to a non-jury trial and motion for a non-jury trial. Therein, Mr. Jefferson and International agreed that this matter would be tried by the trial court without a jury. In addition, Mr. Jefferson and International filed a joint motion for new trial or rehearing, requesting a new trial or rehearing of the denial of the motions for summary judgment. Therein, the parties maintained that they had filed their stipulation to a non-jury trial, that the facts were not in dispute, that discovery had been completed, and that the case was ripe for judicial determination. The parties also pointed out that "[n]o other facts [would] be introduced at trial;" that "[i]f the matter were to proceed to trial, ... the same testimony, depositions, exhibits, and evidence would be introduced;" and that "[n]either party [would be] prejudiced by the [trial c]ourt weighing the evidence and rendering its decision at this time." Thereafter, the trial court rendered and signed a judgment on January 31, 2018, in favor of Mr. Jefferson and against International, finding International totally at fault for causing the accident. From this judgment, International has appealed.
We recognize that in determining whether summary judgment is appropriate, the trial court cannot weigh evidence or make credibility determinations. See Independent Fire Ins. Co. v Sunbeam Corp., 99-2181 (La. 2/29/00), 755 So.2d 226, 236; Jones v. American Alternative Ins. Corp., 2014-0367 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1/8/15), 169 So.3d 386, 392. However, under the circumstances presented herein, where the parties expressly stipulated in writing that the trial court was to weigh the evidence and render a decision on the merits, we find that the motion for new trial or rehearing on the motions for summary judgment was tantamount to a stipulation to submit the matter for a trial on the briefs, deposition testimony, and exhibits attached thereto. See La. C.C.P. art. 865; see also Morgan v. Morgan, 2016-0964 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2/17/17), 212 So.3d 1235, 1237, writ denied, 2017-0454 (La. 5/1/17), 219 So.3d 331 and Anzalone v. Anzalone, 2007-1905 (La. App. 1st Cir. 11/18/08), 25 So.3d 836, 837 n.1, writ granted and judgment reversed in part on other grounds, 2008-2981, 2008-2988 (La. 4/13/09), 6 So.3d 754-755 (wherein by agreement of the parties, the matter, in lieu of trial, was submitted to the trial court for a decision based upon the briefs submitted by the parties and the exhibits attached thereto). Therefore, we deem the judgment on appeal herein a partial final judgment on the merits rather than a partial summary judgment.
MARITIME NEGLIGENCE
Mr. Jefferson's action for damages against International is based on International's alleged negligence. Since this accident occurred on a vessel in navigation, maritime law is applicable. The elements of a maritime negligence cause of action are essentially the same as land-based negligence. Dunaway v. Louisiana Wildlife & Fisheries Comm'n, 2008-1494 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2/13/09), 6 So.3d 228, 233, citing Withhart v. Otto Candies, L.L.C., 431 F.3d 840, 842 (5th Cir. 2005) and Usé v. Usé, 94-0972 (La. App. 1st Cir. 4/7/95), 654 So.2d 1355, 1359 n. 2, writs denied, 95-1834, 95-1879 (La. 11/13/95), 662 So.2d 468. The plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty, (2) that the defendant breached that duty, (3) that the plaintiff sustained injury, and (4) that a causal connection exists between the defendant's conduct and plaintiff's injury. Dunaway, 6 So.3d at 233, citing In re Cooper/T. Smith v. Gnots-Reserve, Inc., 929 F.2d 1073, 1077 (5th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 865, 112 S.Ct. 190, 116 L.Ed.2d 151 (1991).
It is a well-settled principle of maritime law that a ship owner owes the duty of exercising reasonable care towards those lawfully aboard the vessel who are not members of the crew. Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625, 630, 79 S.Ct. 406, 409, 3 L.Ed. 2nd 550 (1959). The ship owner's duty of reasonable care includes the duty to warn passengers of dangers or conditions of which the owner knows or should know, but which may not be apparent to a reasonable passenger. Lugo v. Carnival Corporation, 154 F.Supp.3d 1341, 1345 (S.D. Fla. 2015). However, a ship owner is not required to warn of dangers or conditions that are open and obvious. Meyers v. M/V Eugenio C, 919 F.2d 1070, 1073 (5th Cir. 1990). Open and obvious conditions are those that should be obvious by the ordinary use of one's senses; whether a danger is open and obvious is determined from an objective, not subjective, point of view. Lugo, 154 F.Supp.3d at 1345-1346. Furthermore, a passenger must also exercise reasonable care and prudence for his own safety. Day v. Touchard, Inc., 97-1180 (La. App. 5th Cir. 5/27/98), 712 So.2d 1072, 1077.
According to the evidence, on the date of the accident, Mr. Jefferson was working as a rigger for General Fabricators performing construction on platforms offshore the coast of Louisiana. When the work day ended, Mr. Jefferson and other workers were being transported as passengers on a supply vessel owned by International from the platform on which they had been working to the living quarters platform to spend the night. As the vessel approached the living quarters platform, Mr. Jefferson exited the galley and walked to the stern where the jump deck was located in order to place an empty plastic water bottle into the trash bag that was tied to the handrail of the jump deck. When Mr. Jefferson reached the handrail, he put his water bottle into the trash bag. He then leaned or relaxed against the handrail for a period of time while he was waiting for the personnel basket to be lowered from the platform to the deck of the vessel. Approximately two feet from the handrail where the plaintiff was standing and against which he was leaning, there was a gap between the deck boards. The gap between the deck boards was attributable to the fact that a 12-inch wide deck board was missing because it had been lost overboard due to rough weather at sea a couple of days earlier and had not yet been replaced. However, the boards adjacent to the missing deck board had been moved to an angle to reduce the width of the gap left by the missing deck board. When Mr. Jefferson observed the personnel basket being lowered to the deck of the vessel, he took one step backwards, and as he did so, stepped into the gap, lost his balance and fell backwards onto his buttocks. Mr. Jefferson stated that he did not see that there was a missing deck board and that he did not know that there was a missing deck board or a gap between the deck boards; however, Mr. Jefferson admitted that he probably stepped over the gap in order to put his water bottle in the trash bag.
Deck boards are laid over the steel deck of the vessel. --------
Patrick Breaux and Derrick Kendrick, who were both deckhands and eyewitnesses to the accident, opined that the missing deck board and gap were readily and easily observable if you were looking down at the deck and that one should always be looking down at the deck when walking on it.
Based on the evidence, as well as the photographs taken of the cargo deck shortly after the accident occurred, International maintains that Mr. Jefferson was not paying attention to where he was walking, that he was not exercising reasonable care for his own safety, and that the gap created by the missing deck board was readily observable, open, and obvious. Thus, International maintains that it is not liable for Mr. Jefferson's injuries. On the other hand, Mr. Jefferson maintains that he was exercising reasonable care, and that he stepped backwards only because he saw the personnel basket descending onto the deck. He also maintains that the gap created by the missing deck board was camouflaged by both the angle of the adjacent deck boards and the different colors of the deck boards surrounding the missing deck board, which created a mosaic effect. Thus, Mr. Jefferson maintains that the gap created by the missing deck board was not open and obvious, that International had a duty to warn him about this dangerous condition, and that International's failure to do so rendered it liable for his injuries.
After reviewing the evidence, the trial court found International liable for Mr. Jefferson's injuries. In written reasons for judgment, the trial court found that:
the space in the cargo deck floor of the vessel alone may not necessarily [have] created an unreasonably dangerous condition, and even perhaps, under ordinary circumstances, it arguably could have been an open and obvious condition. However, the manner in which [Mr. Jefferson] encountered this condition prevents the condition from being open and obvious. [Mr. Jefferson], at the time of the fall[,] was exercising a reasonable degree of care in light of the circumstances at the time of the fall, and the space in the cargo deck floor of the vessel[,] under the circumstances present ...[,] created an unreasonable risk of harm.
Based on our review of the record, we find no error in the judgment of the trial court. International was obviously aware of the danger presented by the gap from the missing deck board in that they angled the adjacent deck boards in order to reduce or minimize the width of the gap. However, in doing so, this made the missing deck board less obvious to the ordinary viewer. We also note that the missing deck board was in close proximity to the garbage bag that was tied to the handrail of the jump deck, and thus, that dangerous condition was in an area that would no doubt attract passengers, like Mr. Jefferson, who needed to throw something into the garbage. Furthermore, the garbage bag would have been a distraction that obscured the missing deck board, as a reasonable person walking in that area of the vessel would likely be focused on walking toward the garbage bag to throw away the item of trash rather than focusing solely on the conditions of the deck, as Mr. Jefferson did. Moreover, Mr. Jefferson's action of stepping backwards as the personnel basket was being lowered was reasonable under the circumstances. Indeed, it would be unreasonable to expect Mr. Jefferson to be focusing on the deck when he was prudently focusing on the transfer basket that was being lowered from above. Thus, the trial court's determination that the missing deck board was a dangerous condition under the circumstances, which was not open and obvious, and its conclusion that International was liable for Mr. Jefferson's injuries were not erroneous and are supported by the record.
Accordingly, the January 31, 2018 judgment of the trial court is affirmed. All costs of this appeal are assessed to the defendants/appellants, International Marine, LLC.
AFFIRMED.