U.S. - Seaman’s Response To General Call For Help Precludes Finding Of Contributory Negligence

February 2002

The Ninth Circuit held in Simeonoff v. Hiner*, that the District Court was in error in finding contributory negligence when a seaman was injured after responding to a general call for help from his superior.

The plaintiff was injured while crab fishing when a pot launcher crushed his foot. He had discovered a leak in a pipe fitting on a hydraulic pipe that raises and lowers the launcher, and reported the problem to the engineer, who, in turn, reported it to the captain. The plaintiff then left the launcher to work at the bait station. While the engineer was working on the launcher, he called for assistance. The plaintiff responded to the call for help. As the plaintiff went under the launcher, it fell on him, causing serious injuries. Both the engineer and the plaintiff failed to ensure that the launcher was secure before beginning the repair, which would have prevented the injury.

After trial by the court without a jury, the court concluded that the engineer’s negligence rendered the vessel unseaworthy at the time he directed Simeonoff to go beneath the launcher, and that this unseaworthiness caused Simeonoff’s injuries. The court further found that Simeonoff was also negligent for going under the launcher without first assuring that it was secured by the crane.

The Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court as to the comparative negligence finding. The court followed the Fifth Circuit in Williams v. Brasea, Inc.**, and reasoned that it was "unreasonable to require a seaman who has received an order to delay execution of that order until he or she has made a reasonable effort to be sure that following it will not cause injury." The court went on to explain that compliance with orders from supervisors promoted vessel safety and aided efficacy of command at sea. The court held that "a seaman may not be held contributorily negligent for carrying out orders that result in injury, even if the seaman recognizes possible danger and does not delay to consider a safer alternative." The court also held that this rule included a situation where a seaman responded to an urgent, yet general, call to the crew for assistance.

 

With thanks to Mia Perachiotti-Germack of Cox, Wootton, Griffin, Hansen & Poulos, LLP, San Francisco, for supplying this article.

*249 F.3d 883 (9th Cir. 2001)

**497 F.2d 67, 73 (5th Cir. 1974)