Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:In March 2001, the court says that an intoxicated Leroy Brown boarded the M/V ROXANNE T, where he worked. The vessel’s captain, Henry Kopsywa, ordered Brown to sleep it off in his bunk. At his bunk, Brown initiated a fight with his bunkmate, Jerry Rudolph. Kopsywa fired Brown on the spot and ordered him off the vessel. When Brown refused, Kopsywa called the Greater Lafourche Port Commission harbor police to escort him off. Brown got away from the police and reboarded the vessel. He found Rudolph and resumed the fight. When crewmate Robert Hasty tried to break up the fight, he was knocked down. His foot got tangled in a stair support and he broke his leg. Hasty sued Trans Atlas, the owner of the vessel, for negligence under the Jones Act, and for unseaworthiness under general maritime principles. He also raised vicarious liability claims against Trans Atlas for the acts of the negligence of the harbor police. The district court granted summary judgment for Trans Atlas as the harbor police. HOLDING:Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part. The court finds that the district court erred in granting summary judgment for the defendants on the negligence claims brought under the Jones Act. The court finds that a reasonable jury could determine that Hasty’s injury was a foreseeable consequence of permitting Brown to board the vessel initially, even though he was intoxicated. Additionally, a reasonable jury could also conclude that Kopsywa was negligent in allowing Brown to reboard the vessel, which Brown was able to do in part because the gangway was not guarded. Though the court expresses no opinion on the ultimate resolution of these claims, it finds there’s enough evidence to merit review by a jury. The court, however, agrees that the rest of Hasty’s claims were properly defeated by summary judgment for the defendants. To establish that the M/V ROXANNE T was unseaworthy, Hasty would have had to prove that a crewmember was not equal to others due to “wicked disposition, a propensity to evil conduct, [or] a savage and vicious nature.” Hasty presented no evidence that Brown possessed these characteristics. The court then holds that Trans Atlas was not vicariously liable for the acts of the harbor police, as those officers did not become Trans Atlas’ agents simply because Trans Atlas called for help. Finally, the court finds that admiralty jurisdiction does not extend to the claims raised directly against the GLPC because the activities of the entity are insufficiently related to traditional maritime activity. OPINION:Clement, J.; Benavides, Stewart and Clement, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.