Mass Tort Update- |
- Philadelphia, PA 215-567-3500
- |
- Red Bank, NJ 732-747-9003
Mass Tort Update
QUINN vs. SONAT MARINE
July 1985
Result: $ 115,026.76 Gross verdict
State: Pennsylvania
Facts: The plaintiff, a male in his late 20's, contended that he was employed as a seaman on a tugboat owned by the defendant. The plaintiff asserted that he suffered a comminuted fracture to the heel requiring triple arthrodesis. The plaintiff contended that the incident occurred as a result of the defendant failing to provide a ladder for safe ingress onto the tugboat from a barge, causing the plaintiff to step from the barge onto the tugboat without the assistance of a ladder. The plaintiff asserted that he suffered his injury when he slipped as he climbed down from the barge onto the quaterbitt. The plaintiff contended that he had been ashore for a few hours visiting with relatives and that in his absence, the barge was discharging fuel, causing it to rise in the water so that it was at a higher level than the tugboat.
The plaintiff argued that under maritime law, the defendant was negligent in failing to provide a ladder to assist the crew in boarding the tugboat from the barge, rendering the vessel unseaworthy. The plaintiff further asserted that members of the defendant's crew were negligent in failing to leave a ladder out for safe boarding of the tugboat. Other crew members, by deposition testimony, testified that they also boarded the tugboat without assistance of a ladder. The captain of the tugboat asserted that it was not his responsibility to provide a ladder. The plaintiff countered that case law precedent has established a duty to provide safe ingress and egress.
The plaintiff expert orthopedic surgeon verified the injury and asserted that the plaintiff was disabled from employment as a seaman. The plaintiff, who had a Master's degree in creative writing, had retrained for employment in a management training company. The plaintiff further claimed that as a result of his disability from working as a seaman, he no longer had the time nor was he exposed to the subject matter that provided him with the ability to pursue his writing. The plaintiff's vocational expert testified that steady work following a career change is often uncertain and that the plaintiff could expect wage loss. The plaintiff maintained that he had greater earning power as a seaman.
The defendant maintained that there had been no negligence. The defendant argued that it was not its duty to leave a ladder out for crew members. The defendant asserted that it was not safe to leave out a ladder due to the movements of the vessels. The defendant further argued that the plaintiff had been contributorily negligent in the manner in which he stepped onto the tugboat. The defendant asserted that the plaintiff could have radioed across to the tugboat, or put out a ladder for himself. The plaintiff countered that this was not normal practice. The defendant's expert sea captain asserted that the plaintiff did not exercise proper care in boarding the tugboat. The defendant's vocational expert testified that the plaintiff had obtained good earning capacity in his employment with a management training company and that he would be able to continue to work as long as he chose.
The jury found the defendant 65% negligent and the plaintiff 35% comparatively negligent. The jury awarded then $ 70,000 for past lost earnings until the time of trial, $ 20,000 for past pain and suffering, $ 10,000 for future pain and suffering, and $ 10,026.76 for past medical expenses. The plaintiff's wife was awarded $ 5,000 for loss of consortium. The jury award was reduced to $ 74,767.39.
| Enter any relevant background information or case specifics so that we can best understand your situation: | ||
|
To Prevent Automated Submissions, Enter the 4 Digit Number Shown Below
(OR YOU MAY CALL US DIRECTLY AT 888-375-7600) |
||
 6369
|
||