Waterfront Operations Verdicts: Greenough v. Boston Tow And Transporty Co.

GREENOUGH vs. BOSTON TOW AND TRANSPORT COMPANY

October, 2003;

Result: $ 125,000 Verdict

State: Massachusetts

Facts: The male plaintiff in this case was a worker working on the defendant's oil barge who claimed that a chicken bone was left on the deck of the barge which rendered it unseaworthy and caused the plaintiff bodily injury. The defendant maintained that the presence of a chicken bone on the deck of the barge did not cause the condition of the ship to rise to the level of unseaworthiness. The plaintiff had no proof of negligence and thus was not entitled to a jury trial. The case proceeded as a bench trial on the issue of unseaworthiness.

In the early morning hours of the day in question, the plaintiff stepped from the dock to the outer deck of the barge then over a small containment rail onto the inner deck of the barge. When the plaintiff stepped onto the inner deck, he stepped on something unseen, causing his leg to twist and the plaintiff to slide across the deck. When the plaintiff looked to see what he had stepped on, he observed a small chicken bone which had been left on the deck of the ship. It is believed that the bone may have been dropped by a seagull passing overhead. The plaintiff asserted that the chicken bone on the deck of the barge created a situation whereby the barge was in a state of transitory unseaworthiness. Given the dangerous nature of ship work, the plaintiff contended that anything which renders the vessel unsafe for any length of time creates unseaworthiness.

As a result of his fall, the plaintiff tore his anterior cruciate ligament requiring surgery. The plaintiff presented testimony from his treating surgeon who confirmed the plaintiff's injury, depicted the surgery necessary to repair the injury and described the plaintiff's recovery and future limitations due to the injury.

The plaintiff presented the testimony of a fellow crew member who stated that although he did not see the chicken bone, he did observe that the plaintiff was following the usual route crewmembers took to board the ship when he slipped. The coworker also stated that the plaintiff was fine before boarding the ship and then came to the witness immediately after he fell limping and complaining of knee pain. The coworker testified that he then drove the plaintiff to the defendant's headquarters where the plaintiff reported the accident. The plaintiff also called the defendant's general manager who stated that the plaintiff was a good worker and that the route the plaintiff described was the typical route workers took when boarding barges, and that the plaintiff had reported the accident to the defendant.

The defendant contended that the presence of a chicken bone on the deck of the barge did not constitute an unseaworthy condition. The defendant described the barge as being 120 feet long and asserted that a tiny chicken bone did not disable or render unsafe a ship of that size. In an attempt to limit damages, the defendant also argued that it was moving to another state shortly after the accident and would no longer have employed the plaintiff anyway.

The judge ruled that the chicken bone caused a condition of unseaworthiness on the defendant barge and thus allowed that the plaintiff could collect damages. Following the judge's ruling, the plaintiff and the defendant settled the damages aspect in the amount of $ 125,000.

• Ebanks v. Great lakes Dredge & Dock
• Quinn v. Sonat Marine
• Greenough v. Boston Tow And Transporty Co.
• Richard Summers v. Washington Sand Co.
• Ramos vs. Coastline Transfer, Inc., et al.

Waterfront Operations Topics

• Dock and Barge Injuries
• Off Shore Construction Injuries
• Waterfront Operations Verdicts

Waterfront Operations Videos

Waterfront Operations Links

• Waterfront Operations - U.S. Customs and Border Administration
Includes ports of entry from all of the fifty states.