Recent Jones Act Case Upholds $1,585,000.00 Verdict
The San Antonio Court of Appeals recently issued a unanimous opinion affirming a $1,585,000.00 jury verdict in a Jones Act case. The opinion is styled Weeks Marine, Inc. v. Salinas.
Salinas worked for Weeks Marine, a dredging company, as a mate. He worked on the M/V BTD II, a dredge boat. While the dredge was in a repair facility in Houma, Louisiana, Salinas injured his back. He was hurt while lifting two 45 pound batteries. He was required to carry these batteries from the yard across two gangways. He was hurt as he stepped from one of the gangways.
The jury found that Salinas was a Jones Act seaman, that Weeks Marine was negligent, that the M/V BTD II was unseaworthy, and issued a verdict of $1,585,000.00, which the trial court reduced to $1,109,500.00.
Weeks Marine appealed. It claimed that Salinas was not a Jones Act seaman, that the vessel wasn't unseaworthy, and that the evidence of future economic loss was insufficient to support the jury's findings.
The Court rejected all of Weeks' appellate points, and rightfully so. Perhaps more importantly, the Court of Appeals also reinstated part of the jury's verdict that the trial court had reduced based on Salinas' contributory negligence. The Court reasoned that Weeks Marine never requested an additional instruction "inquiring about whether despite the unseaworthy condition, Salinas was contributorily negligence with regard to the injuries he suffered as a result of the unseaworthy condition." In other words, Weeks Marine waived its contributory negligence defense.
This opinion is a straightforward discussion of seaman status, Jones Act negligence, and unseaworthiness, and re-affirms the legal standards in Jones Act and unseaworthiness claims, as well as the evidence sufficient to support such findings.
Salinas worked for Weeks Marine, a dredging company, as a mate. He worked on the M/V BTD II, a dredge boat. While the dredge was in a repair facility in Houma, Louisiana, Salinas injured his back. He was hurt while lifting two 45 pound batteries. He was required to carry these batteries from the yard across two gangways. He was hurt as he stepped from one of the gangways.
The jury found that Salinas was a Jones Act seaman, that Weeks Marine was negligent, that the M/V BTD II was unseaworthy, and issued a verdict of $1,585,000.00, which the trial court reduced to $1,109,500.00.
Weeks Marine appealed. It claimed that Salinas was not a Jones Act seaman, that the vessel wasn't unseaworthy, and that the evidence of future economic loss was insufficient to support the jury's findings.
The Court rejected all of Weeks' appellate points, and rightfully so. Perhaps more importantly, the Court of Appeals also reinstated part of the jury's verdict that the trial court had reduced based on Salinas' contributory negligence. The Court reasoned that Weeks Marine never requested an additional instruction "inquiring about whether despite the unseaworthy condition, Salinas was contributorily negligence with regard to the injuries he suffered as a result of the unseaworthy condition." In other words, Weeks Marine waived its contributory negligence defense.
This opinion is a straightforward discussion of seaman status, Jones Act negligence, and unseaworthiness, and re-affirms the legal standards in Jones Act and unseaworthiness claims, as well as the evidence sufficient to support such findings.
