Clarence Smith v. Weeks Marine, Inc.

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

09-980

CLARENCE SMITH

VERSUS

WEEKS MARINE, INC., ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE

TWENTY-SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

PARISH OF ST. LANDRY, NO. 06-C-2019-A

HONORABLE JAMES PAUL DOHERTY, JR., DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

ULYSSES GENE THIBODEAUX

CHIEF JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, John D. Saunders, and

James T. Genovese, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Mark Gerard Artall

109 South College Road

Lafayette, LA 70505

Telephone: (337) 233-1777

COUNSEL FOR:

Plaintiff/Appellee - Clarence Smith

Kevin Reeve Duck

Duck Law Firm

4906 Ambassador Caffery Pkwy., Bldg. J - Ste. 1010

Lafayette, LA 70508

Telephone: (337) 406-1144

COUNSEL FOR:

Plaintiff/Appellee - Clarence Smith

Matthew Francis Popp

Waits, Emmett & Popp, L.L.C.

1515 Poydras Street, Suite 1950

New Orleans, LA 70112

Telephone: (504) 581-1301

COUNSEL FOR:

Defendant/Appellant - Weeks Marine, Inc.

THIBODEAUX, Chief Judge.

The plaintiff-appellee, Clarence Smith (Mr. Smith), sustained multiple

injuries while quartered on the barge of the defendant-appellant, Weeks Marine, Inc.

(Weeks). In June of 2005, Mr. Smith was awakened after midnight by two other crew

members who dragged him from his bunk and severely beat him. Mr. Smith filed a

petition naming as defendants the two attackers and Weeks, the barge

owner/employer. He subsequently amended his petition to add the employer/payroll

company, apparently a subsidiary of Weeks, Atlantic Sounding Company, Inc.

(Atlantic). Mr. Smith alleged Jones Act negligence and unseaworthiness of the

vessel. He also claimed entitlement to maintenance and cure benefits as well as to

damages and attorney fees.

Mr. Smith, Weeks, and Atlantic filed cross motions for summary

judgment. The trial court granted Mr. Smith a partial summary judgment on the issue

of Weeks’ failure to provide a seaworthy vessel. The trial court denied the motions

for summary judgment of Weeks and Atlantic which were based upon Jones Act

negligence and seaworthiness. Weeks filed this appeal. We affirm the judgment of

the trial court.

I.

ISSUES

We must decide whether the trial court erred in finding the quarters

barge unseaworthy based upon the attack of Mr. Smith and the criminal backgrounds

of the crew members.

II.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On the morning of June 26, 2005, between 3:00 and 4:00 a.m., while Mr.

Smith was asleep in his bunk on the quarters barge of Weeks, he was dragged from

his bunk and attacked. One of his attackers was his roommate, crew member Tracey

Collins, who was approximately six feet, six inches tall and weighed 236 pounds.

Another crew member, Ashton Edwards, approximately six feet, one inch and 250

pounds, was in the room verbally and physically attacking Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith,

approximately six feet tall and weighing 155 pounds, was thrown to the floor,

punched, kicked, and rammed head-first into the iron bed rails and metal lockers.

Mr. Smith sustained a closed head injury, a concussion, lacerations to his

forehead, a retinal tear and subconjunctivial hemorrhage of the left eye, abrasions of

the lower lip, a fractured incisor, the loss of four teeth, temporomandibular jaw injury

(TMJ), contusions to the left side of his chest and back, trauma to his right knee and

shoulder, injuries to the lower back, post traumatic stress disorder, and depression.

He could not return to work for approximately two months. Mr. Smith’s medical

treatment included a six-unit dental bridge and root canal, splint therapy for the TMJ,

eye laser treatment for the repair of the detached retina, a lumbar diskectomy and

fusion at L4-5 and L5-S1, and clinical therapy for the post traumatic stress disorder

and depression.

The trial court granted Mr. Smith’s motion for summary judgment on the

unseaworthiness of the vessel and denied the defendants’ motion for summary

judgment on the issue of Jones Act negligence. Weeks filed a motion for

reconsideration which was heard and denied in June of 2009. The trial court’s June

2009 judgment denying the motion for reconsideration also designated the November

2

2008 judgment in favor of Mr. Smith a partial final judgment. Weeks appealed the

June 2009 judgment.

III.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

Standard of Review

A motion for summary judgment will be granted “if the pleadings,

depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the

affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact and that

mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Sher v. Lafayette Ins. Co., 07-2441

p. 5 (La. 4/8/08), 988 So.2d 186, 192. Using the same criteria, courts review a grant

or a denial of a motion for summary judgment de novo. Id.

Jurisdictional Issue

We will first address the jurisdictional issue of whether the 2008

judgment was a final, appealable judgment under La.Code Civ.P. art 1915.1

1

Article 1915 provides in pertinent part as follows:

A. A final judgment may be rendered and signed by the court,

even though it may not grant the successful party or parties all of the

relief prayed for, or may not adjudicate all of the issues in the case,

when the court:

(1) Dismisses the suit as to less than all of the

parties, defendants, third party plaintiffs, third party

defendants, or intervenors.

....

(3) Grants a motion for summary judgment, as

provided by Articles 966 through 969, but not

including a summary judgment granted pursuant to

Article 966(E).

....

(5) Signs a judgment on the issue of liability

when that issue has been tried separately by the court

....

3

Mr. Smith’s petition asserts a Jones Act negligence claim and a claim for

unseaworthiness of the vessel. It further charges Weeks and Atlantic with failure to

pay maintenance and cure benefits and asserts an entitlement to damages and attorney

fees. Mr. Smith subsequently filed a “Motion and Order for Partial Summary

Judgment on the Issue of Liability.” However, the only liability issue addressed in

the motion was for unseaworthiness of the vessel. At trial, counsel for Mr. Smith

stated that if unseaworthiness were found, the court would not have to address the

Jones Act negligence claims. However, Weeks argued that the court would have to

deal with both. Weeks was correct. Mr. Smith actually asserted three separate

theories of liability. Judge Belsome’s concurrence in Parfait v. Transocean Offshore,

Inc., 04-1271, pp. 1-2 (La.App. 4 Cir. 8/10/07), 992 So.2d 465, 488-89, explained:

I . . . concur with the majority’s finding that the jury’s

determination that the Rather was seaworthy had no effect

with regard to the jury’s finding of negligence on the part

of Transocean . . . as Jones Act negligence and

unseaworthiness are separate and distinct causes of action

with differing standards of proof, a principal [sic] that has

been recognized by both the United States and Louisiana

Supreme Courts, as well as this Court. See, e.g., Usner v.

Luckenbach Overseas Corp., 400 U.S. 494, 498, 91 S.Ct.

514, 517, 27 L.Ed.2d 562 (1971); Griffin v. LeCompte, 471

So.2d 1382, 1387 (La.1985); Wright v. Ocean Drilling and

Exploration Co., 461 So.2d 1084, 1089 (La.App. 4 Cir.

....

B. (1) When a court renders a partial judgment or partial

summary judgment or sustains an exception in part, as to one or more

but less than all of the claims, demands, issues, or theories . . . the

judgment shall not constitute a final judgment unless it is designated

as a final judgment by the court after an express determination that

there is no just reason for delay.

(2) In the absence of such a determination and designation,

any order or decision which adjudicates fewer than all claims or the

rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties, shall not terminate

the action as to any of the claims or parties and shall not constitute a

final judgment for the purpose of an immediate appeal. Any such

order or decision issued may be revised at any time prior to rendition

of the judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and

liabilities of all the parties.

4

1984) (“Theories of unseaworthiness and negligence are

two separate and distinct basis [sic] of liability....’ [I]n

view of the decisions in this court over the last 15 years,

we can find no room for argument as to what the law is.

What has evolved is a complete divorcement of

unseaworthiness liability from concepts of negligence.’”)

(quoting Mitchell v. Trawler Racer, Inc., 362 U.S. 539,

551, 80 S.Ct. 926, 932-933, 4 L.Ed.2d 941 (1960))

(emphasis in original).

The concurrence footnoted other cases upholding this principle:

Olsen v. American S.S. Co., 176 F.3d 891, 894, 2000

A.M.C. 90 (6th Cir. 1999) (stating that a seaman has three

causes of action available to him: first, an action for

maintenance and cure; second, an action for

unseaworthiness; and third, a negligence action under the

Jones Act); Springborn v. American Commercial Barge

Lines, Inc., 767 F.2d 89, 100 (5th Cir. 1985) (finding that

“[w]hile the facts that give rise to unseaworthiness claims

sometimes support Jones Act negligence claims, each is a

distinct claim”); Chisholm v. Sabine Towing & Transp.

Co., Inc., 679 F.2d 60, 62 (5th Cir. 1982) (“Jones Act

negligence and unseaworthiness are two separate and

distinct claims . . . . This court recognizes [these] two

different standards of causation.”).

Parfait, 992 So.2d at 494 n.1.

Accordingly, the motion that was granted by the trial court, and the trial

court’s judgment in favor of Mr. Smith on the issue of unseaworthiness alone,

resulted in the adjudication of one claim or theory of liability only. The judgment did

not dismiss any party to the suit under La.Code Civ.P. art. 1915(A)(1), nor did it

qualify as a final and immediately appealable judgment under La.Code Civ.P. art.

1915(A)(3) because it falls under that subpart’s exception for summary judgments

granted pursuant to La.Code Civ.P. art. 966(E) (disposing of one claim but not of the

entire case). Further, the judgment does not qualify as an immediately appealable

final judgment under art. 1915(A)(5) because, while the motion’s title indicates that

it seeks to dispose of the issue of liability, indicating that damages will be tried

5

separately, it actually seeks to dispose of only one of three issues of liability asserted

in Mr. Smith’s petition.

Therefore, the partial summary judgment granted in favor of Mr. Smith,

which adjudicates fewer than all claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all

parties is not an immediately appealable final judgment under La.Code Civ.P. art.

1915(A), but may be immediately appealable under 1915(B), if it is certified or

designated as a final judgment by the trial court after an express determination that

there is no just reason for delay. La.Code Civ.P. art. 1915(B)(1) & (2). In the present

case, the trial court did not initially certify the November 2008 judgment in favor of

Mr. Smith and against Weeks on the issue of unseaworthiness as final. Therefore, the

judgment was interlocutory and could be “revised at any time prior to rendition of the

judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties.”

La.Code Civ.P. art. 1915(B)(2).

However, following the hearing on the defendants’ motion for

reconsideration of the 2008 judgment, the trial court entered a judgment on June 15,

2009, denying reconsideration and certifying the prior judgment as final. It is this

June 2009 judgment that is before us on appeal. Specifically, the trial court stated in

the 2009 judgment, as follows: “[T]he judgment signed and filed on November 5,

2008, granting Summary Judgment in favor of Plaintiff on the Unseaworthiness

Cause of Action is hereby made a final judgment.” Two weeks later, on July 2, 2009,

the trial court issued written reasons for its judgment denying reconsideration and for

its certification of the earlier judgment as a final judgment, based upon its opinion

that “there was no just reason for delay.” The question for us on the jurisdictional

issue then becomes whether the trial court’s certification of the 2008 judgment as a

final, immediately appealable judgment was appropriate or defective. Ancillary

6

questions arise as to whether the proper vehicle would have been an application for

supervisory writs, whether the appeal should be dismissed, or converted to a writ,

which is allowed in certain circumstances,2 or whether a remand to the trial court is

required; and, if the appeal is properly before us, what is the standard under which we

conduct our review.

In order to resolve a split in the Louisiana circuit courts of appeal in

interpreting the certification language of Article 1915, the Louisiana Supreme Court

conducted an in-depth analysis of the legislative intent underlying the 1997

amendments to La.Code Civ.P. art. 1915, as those amendments were clearly patterned

after Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). That analysis, appearing in R.J.

Messinger, Inc. v. Rosenblum, 04-1664 (La. 3/2/05), 894 So.2d 1113, is instructive

and determinative of the jurisdictional issue before us. There, the court stated, in

pertinent part, as follows:

Historically, we have a policy against multiple

appeals and piecemeal litigation. We also ensure that our

courts operate under principles of sound judicial

administration to promote judicial efficiency and economy.

The United States Supreme Court, discussing

determination of whether there is no just reason for delay

under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 54, declared a district court must

take into account judicial administrative interests as well as

the equities involved. Curtiss-Wright, 446 U.S. at 8, 100

S.Ct. at 1465. Consideration of judicial administrative

interests is necessary to assure that application of the Rule

effectively “preserves the historic federal policy against

piecemeal appeals.” Id. citing Sears, Roebuck & Co. v.

Mackey, 351 U.S. 427, 438, 76 S.Ct. 895, 901, 100 L.Ed.

1297 (1956). Article 1915, like Rule 54, attempts to strike

a balance between the undesirability of piecemeal appeals

and the need for making review available at a time that best

serves the needs of the parties. . . .

2

See La.Code Civ.P. art. 2164; Yell v. Sumich, 08-296 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/15/08), 997 So.2d

69; LeBlanc v. LeBlanc, 05-212 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/02/05), 915 So.2d 966; Stelluto v. Stelluto, 05-74

(La. 6/29/05), 914 So.2d 34.

7

In order to assist the appellate court in its review of

designated final judgments, the trial court should give

explicit reasons, either oral or written, for its

determination that there is no just reason for delay.

However, if the trial court fails to do so, we find the

appellate court cannot summarily dismiss the appeal. For

purposes of judicial efficiency and economy, we approve

the approach taken by the First, Third and Fifth circuits,

and hold the proper standard of review for an order

designating a judgment as final for appeal purposes when

accompanied by explicit reasons is whether the trial court

abused its discretion. . . . The following list of factors,

although not exclusive, may be used by trial judges when

considering whether a partial judgment should be certified

as appealable:

1) The relationship between the

adjudicated and unadjudicated claims;

2) The possibility that the need for

review might or might not be mooted by

future developments in the trial court;

3) The possibility that the reviewing

court might be obliged to consider the same

issue a second time; and

4) Miscellaneous factors such as delay,

economic and solvency considerations,

shortening the time of trial, frivolity of

competing claims, expense, and the like.

Allis-Chalmers, 521 F.2d at 364.

However, the overriding inquiry for the trial court is

whether there is no just reason for delay. Courts of appeal,

when conducting de novo review in matters where the trial

court fails to give explicit reasons for the certification, can

consider these same criteria.

Our interpretation of article 1915, which holds the

certified final judgment is properly before the appellate

court even when the trial court fails to give explicit reasons

for its determination, is in accordance with La.Code

Civ.Pro. art. 5051 which provides “[t]he articles of this

Code are to be construed liberally, and with due regard for

the fact that rules of procedure implement substantive law

and are not an end in themselves.”

R.J. Messinger, Inc., 894 So.2d at 1122-23 (footnote omitted) (emphasis added).

8

In the present case, the trial court gave explicit written reasons for

denying reconsideration, for certifying the 2008 judgment as final, and for the court’s

determination that there was no just reason for delay. More specifically, the trial

court stated, in pertinent part, as follows:

Lastly, the judgment of [November 5, 2008] was

designated as a final judgment because the Court, in the

original motion for summary judgment and in the motion

for reconsideration, found that the hiring of Tracey Collins

as a crewman constituted an unseaworthy condition and

that finding was not contested or raised in the defendant’s

motion for reconsideration. Further, there was no

testimony from Mr. Collins concerning his participation

that would have given rise to an issue of material [] fact as

to what had occurred. The Court assigned finality to the

judgment based on its opinion that there was no just reason

for delay and that the trial of this matter was to begin two

days later. The Court further stated for the record that it

did not see any prejudice to the defendant in denying the

motion for reconsideration that was filed within 60 days of

the setting of the trial and judgment being rendered two

days prior to the beginning of the taking of evidence.

Based upon the foregoing, we review the trial court’s certification of the

2008 judgment under the abuse of discretion standard. We find that the trial court did

not abuse its discretion and that it properly designated as final the 2008 judgment

granting partial summary judgment to Mr. Smith. The trial court provided explicit

written reasons for its determination under Article 1915 that there was no just reason

to delay certifying the judgment in favor of Mr. Smith as a final judgment. The court

stated that nothing in the original hearing on the motion for summary judgment, and

nothing in the hearing on reconsideration, created a material issue of fact, where it

was undisputed that at least one of the co-defendants, Collins, attacked Mr. Smith,

and where the hiring of Collins as a member of the vessel’s crew, in view of his prior

record of violence, “constituted the unseaworthy condition.” Further, we note that

the trial court in its reasons did address the upcoming trial just days away, and,

9

pursuant to number four (4) of the Allis-Chalmers factors, giving finality to the issue

of unseaworthiness would shorten the trial and prevent rehashing the evidence on that

issue.

The Merits

We will conduct a de novo review of the trial court’s granting of the

summary judgment in favor of Mr. Smith. Weeks contends that the trial court erred

as a matter of law in finding that the quarters barge was unseaworthy based upon the

assault and the criminal backgrounds of the crew members. We disagree. In Miles

v. Melrose, 882 F.2d 976, 981 (5th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted) (footnotes omitted),

the court explained the ship owner’s absolute duty to provide a seaworthy vessel and

crew:

A ship is unseaworthy unless it and all of its appurtenances

and crew are reasonably fit and safe for their intended

purpose. The shipowner has an absolute duty to provide

the members of his crew with such a seaworthy vessel, an

obligation not dependent on fault. Just as a dangerous

mast, a defective line, or a damaged hull may render a

vessel unseaworthy, so may a seaman who is not

reasonably fit. To establish such unseaworthiness, a

plaintiff must prove that the crew member was not “equal

in disposition and seamanship to the ordinary men in the

calling.” Under this standard a crew member who

participates in an “ordinary sailors’ brawl” is not per se

unfit; the rigors of work at sea for long periods of time in

the close confines of a vessel may lead not only to quarrels

but to physical challenges. As Judge Learned Hand

explained, “Sailors lead a rough life and are more apt to

use their fists than office employees; what will seem to

sedentary and protected persons an insufficient provocation

for a personal encounter, is not the measure of the

‘disposition’ of ‘the ordinary men in the calling.’” A

seaman is not unfit merely because he is irascible; he fails

to meet the seaworthy standard only if he [possesses] a

savage and vicious nature.

Collins’ criminal arrest and conviction history, spanning the years from

1993 to the attack on Mr. Smith in 2005, included the following:

10

10/93 Simple battery

6/94 Four counts simple burglary and criminal damage to

property

9/94 Disturbing peace, resisting arrest, battery on police

officer

2/95 Receiving stolen goods - guilty - 4/95

4/95 Disturbing the peace by fighting

4/97 Criminal damage to property, resisting arrest by flight

5/97 Simple criminal damage to property

6/97 Criminal trespass and simple battery - pled guilty -

12/98

7/97 Two counts criminal trespass and resisting arrest by

flight

8/97 Simple battery, choked and hit woman -guilty plea -

10/98

8/97 Aggravated assault with a dangerous weapon

8/97 Possession of Marijuana

9/98 Aggravated battery upon a police officer and

resisting arrest, hit officer in the head with a beer bottle -

guilty plea - 12/98

4/00 Disturbing the peace

8/00 Simple battery upon a police officer

9/00 Two counts of simple battery, actually included two

batteries on a woman and one on a man (second attack on

woman hours later not counted as separate) plead guilty -

4/01

9/00 Unauthorized entry of inhabited dwelling

9/00 Violation of Protective Order

10/00 Simple battery, resisting an officer, flight from

officer, and simple criminal damage to property

8/01 Simple robbery

11

Ten of these arrests were for acts of violence against another person, at

times more than one person, and three of the batteries were against police officers.

The criminal history of Edwards contained fewer events but involved

firearms:

9/93 Two counts of attempted 2nd degree murder, pled

to aggravated assault; chased and shot at his father twice

with a twelve gauge shotgun; threatened to kill his father

and mother

5/00 Aggravated assault of Gerald Collins with a

firearm and disturbing the peace, threats with semi

automatic rifle occurred on property of Gerald Collins,

with Collins family, including Tracey Collins, providing

information to the police

Weeks has admitted that both men have criminal histories but argues that

they did not exhibit violent tendencies during their employment, nor did the criminal

histories show up on the background checks performed by Weeks. However, for

many years the courts have enunciated a concept of absolute liability for

unseaworthiness. The plaintiff has a right of recovery for injuries arising from an

unseaworthy ship even though there is no means of anticipating trouble. The ship is

not freed from liability by mere due diligence, and the duty to provide a seaworthy

ship does not at all depend upon the negligence of the shipowner or his agents. Under

maritime law there is an absolute obligation to provide a seaworthy vessel and, in

default thereof, liability follows for any injuries caused by the breach of the

obligation. Mitchell v. Trawler Racer, Inc., 362 U.S. 539, 80 S.Ct. 926 (1960).

Hence, the vessel owner’s liability for the incompetency of the crew is

not dependent upon the knowledge by the owner of such deficiency as the warranty

extends to unknown defects. Keen v. Overseas Tankship, Corp., 194 F.2d 515, cert.

denied, 343 U.S. 966, 72 S.Ct. 1061 (1952). The shipowner’s duty to provide a

seaworthy vessel is nondelegable and pertains to latent as well as patent defects, and

12

neither ignorance nor due diligence will serve as an adequate defense. Clevenger v.

Star Fish & Oyster Co., 325 F.2d 397 (C.A.Ala. 1963).

Mr. Smith testified in his video deposition that Collins and Edwards

came into his room around 4:00 a.m. and started attacking him in his sleep, accusing

him of calling Edwards’ wife and of stealing ten dollars from Collins after he fell in

the water earlier and left the money out to dry. Both men had been out partying and

smelled of alcohol. Mr. Smith said that he had never met or talked to Edwards’ wife

and did not take Collins’ ten dollars. He stated that the attack woke him up, and he

turned over to see Collins over him. He testified that he was pulled from his bed,

stomped on and kicked, and rammed into the iron bed and metal lockers. When his

brother tried to come in, they barricaded the door by putting a chair under the door

knob. Mr. Smith was beaten on the head, in the eye, in the mouth, ribs, and back.

Several teeth were knocked out, and he swallowed one.

At one point, Mr. Smith lost consciousness. He testified that, near the

end of the attack, Edwards threatened him with an open knife, hit him in the back

with the knife, and rubbed the blade on his leg, causing a small cut which left a scar.

Mr. Smith stated that in threatening him with the knife, Edwards said, “I’ll kill you,

if you say something to anybody, I’ll kill your ass.”

Lieutenant James Michael Prestenback came to the hospital after the

attack. He witnessed the bruising on Mr. Smith’s back, the dried blood in his ear, the

cut on his lip, and a loose tooth on his pallet. He stated that Mr. Smith’s injuries were

the result of a felony, specifically a second degree battery, which is a battery

committed upon a person without his consent, where there is a loss of consciousness,

extreme physical pain, obvious disfigurement, and serious bodily injury. The

Lieutenant interviewed the emergency room physician who diagnosed a closed head

13

injury, a laceration closed by stitches, and contusions/bruising caused by a blunt

object.

Mr. Smith’s brother, Christopher Smith, who was on the job and

quartered on the same barge as Mr. Smith, testified that Edwards came to his room

asking which of the brothers had called his “old lady.” Edwards then said, “You

better come and check up on your brother, because I’m about to hurt him.” A while

later, when Christopher went to Mr. Smith’s room, he could not open the door. He

started knocking, and they finally let him in, at which time he saw his brother

slumped over with his knees to his chest, bleeding, while the men huddled over him,

staring down at him.

Citing Walters v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc., 309 F.2d 191

(C.A.N.Y. 1962), and Clevenger, 325 F.2d 397, Weeks argues that the actions of the

crewmen against Mr. Smith do not rise to the level of savage and vicious because no

dangerous weapons were used. We disagree. The court in Walters stated:

In those assault cases in which the issue of

unseaworthiness has been held properly submissible to a

jury, the hallmark has been either an assault with a

dangerous weapon or independent evidence of the

assailant’s exceptionally quarrelsome nature, his habitual

drunkenness, his severe personality disorder, or other

similar factors. . . .

In the case before us, we need not rest our holding upon the

absence of a dangerous weapon, for aside from the

unfortunate instant encounter, there is no evidence to

support a finding of a background of even mildly unusual

character on the part of Shannon, let alone a vicious and

savage one. While it is true that in 1936, Shannon, along

with other individuals, entered a plea of guilty to an assault

charge arising from a maritime labor dispute and received

a six-month sentence with time off for good behavior, he

was employed by the defendant in 1938, and served

without incident for twenty years, until the date of this

shipboard fracas. There was no testimony whatever of any

previous display of ill temper by Shannon.

14

Walters, 309 F.2d at 193-94.

However, unlike the assailant in Walters, Collins did not have a twenty-

year history of non-violence with Weeks. He had worked for Weeks for only six

months when the attack on Mr. Smith occurred. Collins had an eight-year record in

Louisiana, from 1993 to 2001, with more than twenty arrests and ten battery charges,

three of which were on police officers. Even during the “simple robbery” in 2001,

which is not counted as a battery, Collins used force: he grabbed a man and held him

down while stealing his money, knowing that the man had just cashed his paycheck,

because Collins had robbed him on payday before. Moreover, while there appears to

be a peaceful period in Collins’ life between 2001 and 2005, when the second degree

battery on Mr. Smith occurred, we note that Collins lived in Houston when he started

to work for Weeks in Louisiana in December of 2004, and we do not know whether

anyone conducted a criminal record search on Collins in Texas.

The court in Clevenger provided examples of actions falling on both

sides of the seaworthiness issue:

In Jones v. Lykes Bros. S.S. Co., Inc., 2 Cir. 1953,

204 F.2d 81[5], [cert. denied, 346 U.S. 857, 74 S.Ct. 72

(1953),] a crew member gave the libellant a bad beating,

continuing his blows even after the libellant had fallen.

The assailant was not known to have a violent nature and

used only his fists. The Court reaffirmed the Keen test

although it reversed the finding of unseaworthiness. Judge

Hand pointed out: ‘All men are to some degree irascible *

* *. Sailors lead a rough life and are more apt to use their

fists than office employees’. On the facts, there was

nothing to show that the assailant was not ‘equal in

disposition and seamanship to the ordinary men in the

calling’.

In Boudoin v. Lykes Bros. S.S. Co., Inc., 348 U.S.

336, 75 S.Ct. 382, 99 L.Ed. 354, the Supreme Court

accepted the theory of unseaworthiness based on personnel

falling below the standards of the calling. Boudoin’s

injury was inflicted by a deck maintenance man named

Gonzales who entered Boudoin’s cabin during a nighttime

15

drinking party in search of a bottle of brandy. Boudoin

awoke and startled Gonzales who attacked him savagely

with the brandy bottle, inflicting grave injuries. The

district court found that Gonzales was ‘a person of

dangerous propensities and proclivities’, ‘a person of

violent character, belligerent disposition, excessive

drinking habits, disposed to fighting and making threats

and assaults’. Boudoin v. Lykes Bros. S.S. Co., Inc.,

E.D.La.1953, 112 F.Supp. 177 at 179. . . .

A number of cases have applied the Keen test as

restated in Boudoin. In Kelcey v. Tankers Co., 2 Cir. 1954,

217 F.2d 541, the libellant was attacked by the second

cook. The attacker was a much more powerful man, had

served a sentence for an attack with a deadly weapon while

in the Navy, and had previously threatened men aboard

ship with a knife and with an axe. The Court affirmed the

finding of unseaworthiness. In Connolly v. Farrell Lines,

Inc., 1 Cir. 1959, 268 F.2d 653, [cert. denied, 361 U.S.

902, 80 S.Ct. 208 (1959),] however, the Court sustained the

trial judge’s directed verdict for the shipowner where the

plaintiff was injured as a result of an attack by a fellow

crew member wielding a three foot plank. But the plaintiff

had at hand the neck of a broken bottle. The shipowner is

not liable, said the court, for ‘injuries resulting from every

sailor’s brawl. * * * This was not a premeditated attack

with an unmistakably deadly weapon such as a meat

cleaver. In Walters v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc., 2

Cir. 1962, 309 F.2d 191, the court, over a vigorous dissent

by Judge Friendly, concluded that an attack by one seaman

upon another did not justify the submission of the question

of seaworthiness to a jury.

....

The attacker used only his fists and there was no

evidence of earlier trouble. In Thompson v. Coastal Oil

Co., N.J.1954, 119 F.Supp. 838 rev’d on other grounds, 3

Cir. 1955, 221 F.2d 559, the libellant accused an

effeminate messman of being a homosexual. The messman

hid in a doorway and struck the libellant three times over

the head with a meat cleaver. The district court, sitting

without a jury, found that the presence of the messman

rendered the vessel unseaworthy. Similarly, the fact that a

ship’s crew included a belligerent man who would stab a

fellow crew member with a pocket knife rendered the ship

unseaworthy in Handley v. United States, S.D.N.Y.1958,

157 F.Supp. 616.

16

The doctrine that a seaman’s attack is a breach of the

warranty of seaworthiness applies to an unprovoked attack

by a longshoreman on a fellow longshoreman. A

longshoreman’s use of two cargo hooks was seen as

sufficiently vicious to allow a jury to consider the question

of seaworthiness. Smith v. Lauritzen, E.D.Penn.1962, 201

F.Supp. 663.

In all of these cases, as Mr. Justice Douglas put it in

Boudoin, the question is: ‘Was the assault within the usual

and customary standards of the calling’. We extract from

the cases the principle that in itself a savage assault with a

meat cleaver or similarly dangerous weapon can be

sufficient proof that the attacker is ‘not equal in disposition

and seamanship to the ordinary men in the calling’.

Drunkenness and bellicosity are additional factors to

consider when the nature of the assault is inconclusive

evidence of the attacker’s fitness in terms of his calling.

Clevenger, 325 F.2d at 400-402.

Contrary to Weeks’ assertions, this case is analogous to the above cases,

where unseaworthiness was found and is distinguishable from the ones where the

court failed to find unseaworthiness. More specifically, unlike the assailant in Jones,

Collins used more than his fists. He also used the floor, the iron bed rails, the metal

locker, his size and weight, and his feet to inflict serious injuries upon Mr. Smith.

Further, he had a long record of violence. Moreover, Mr. Smith testified that

Edwards used a knife, which is a dangerous weapon, and threatened to kill him. Like

the attacker in Boudoin, Collins had a violent character and belligerent disposition:

he had been convicted of choking and hitting a woman and a man, and then coming

back on the same day and hitting the woman again. He had a history of getting drunk

and starting fights. He was drinking when he attacked Mr. Smith, and he had

previously hit a police officer in the head with a beer bottle. One of the police

officers wrote in his report that Collins was always causing trouble for the police,

resisting arrest, and running into the woods to avoid being caught. Collins was

17

clearly disposed to fighting and making threats. Edwards had a much shorter record

but had actually shot at his parents and threatened to kill them.

Again, like the attacker in Kelcey, Collins was a much more powerful

man than Mr. Smith, with a nine-year, six-inch, and about eighty-pound advantage

over him. Further, Collins had at least ten battery and assault charges on his record.

Likewise, Edwards had nearly a hundred-pound advantage over Mr. Smith, used a

knife on him, and threatened to kill him. Unlike the incident in the Connolly case

above, where the plaintiff had a broken beer bottle and the attacker had a board, Mr.

Smith was not in an one-on-one sailor’s brawl; he was asleep, unarmed, outnumbered,

and outweighed by about 180 pounds.

We find that these men’s actions, coupled with criminal records of

violence, were indicative of a savage and vicious nature, far beyond the simply rowdy

disposition of ordinary seamen. This is particularly true of Collins. Historically, he

choked and beat his girlfriend repeatedly, bullied and stole pay checks from men, hit

police officers with beer bottles, and he had a long history of engaging in fights and

disturbances.

Weeks’ argument that the conduct of Collins and Edwards was the same

as other men in the calling has no merit. It is ludicrous to suggest that, in addition to

the everyday safety risks of manual labor on barges and oil rigs, the industry has a

standard hiring practice of employing violent men who beat their sleeping,

defenseless, and unconscious co-workers so badly that they cannot work for two

months. What industry could survive the resulting disability of its workforce?

Collins in particular did not have the disposition of an ordinary seaman; he was not

fit for service, and his being quartered on the QB-105 rendered the vessel of Weeks

18

unseaworthy. There was no error in the trial court’s judgment granting Mr. Smith’s

motion for summary judgment on the issue of unseaworthiness.

Following the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, Weeks took

the deposition of Edwards, who denied striking Mr. Smith with his fists. However,

Edwards admitted to being mad, hot, drunk, and going to Mr. Smith’s room to tell

him off. Apparently several crewmen, including Mr. Smith, Collins, and Edwards,

were out drinking in the same club the night before the incident. Edwards was

“messing with” or flirting with various women, and Mr. Smith told the women

outside the club that they should not be fooling around with Edwards because he was

married. Edwards was incensed that Mr. Smith would spoil his fun in this way and

apparently got angrier after returning to quarters.

Edwards testified that he did not remember the details of what occurred

in Mr. Smith’s room because he had been drinking. He stated that Mr. Smith and

Collins were standing up arguing when he entered the room and that Mr. Smith had

a “bust” lip and looked like he had been in a fight. Edwards testified that he argued

with Mr. Smith and admitted that he may have brushed against Mr. Smith and put his

hands on him. Edwards physically demonstrated some other movement made by him

against Mr. Smith which was not clarified in the written record except by the lawyer

examining him, who stated, “Well, there’s a punch. There’s a grab.” Edwards denied

punching Mr. Smith but also testified that he subsequently apologized to Mr. Smith

for the “accident” and further testified that his wife paid Mr. Smith a thousand dollars

to drop the criminal charges.

Weeks had filed a pre-trial statement of uncontested facts indicating that

both Collins and Edwards had attacked Mr. Smith. However, on the basis of

Edwards’ deposition, Weeks brought a motion for reconsideration, asserting that this

19

testimony created a genuine issue of fact requiring a reversal of the summary

judgment in favor of Mr. Smith.

The trial court found that the testimony of Edwards did not create a

material issue of fact and denied the motion for reconsideration, stating as follows:

Nothing in the defendant’s motion for

reconsideration brought into issue the actions and past

history of co-defendant Tracey Collins. Even if Mr.

Edwards had not been involved, which the Court finds not

to be the case as hereinafter set forth, the undisputed facts,

both at the time of granting of the original motion for

summary judgment and at the time of the motion for

reconsideration, was that Tracey Collins did participate, if

not perpetuated, the attack on the plaintiff; Tracey Collins

had a prior history of violence and hiring Tracey Collins as

a member of the vessel’s crew constituted the unseaworthy

condition.

We agree. Given the history and the size of Collins, and the fact that Mr.

Smith was asleep and defenseless, Edwards’ participation or non-participation in the

beating, while it created a fact in dispute at the hearing for reconsideration, that fact

was not material with regard to the seaworthiness of the vessel. As the trial court

stated, one bad apple ruins the whole barrel. Weeks further argues that the trial court

erred in making credibility determinations about Edwards.3 The trial court’s comment

that it did not find Edwards’ testimony to be credible was inappropriate. Nonetheless,

based upon our de novo review, summary judgment is still justified. The trial court

repeatedly stated that Edwards’ testimony, the sole basis for the motion to reconsider,

had no bearing on the effect of Collins’ actions. Therefore, we find that the trial

court’s statement regarding its disbelief in part of Edwards’ testimony was harmless

3

The trial court stated in its reasons for judgment: “[A]lthough a motion for summary

judgment is not used to judge the veracity or credibility of a witness, this case was tried as a bench

trial and the trier of fact, having had the opportunity to read the deposition testimony of defendant

Edwards, did not find his testimony to be truthful or credible, particularly when he testified as to his

activities or lack of participation in the encounter with the plaintiff.”

20

error at most, where the court’s legal analysis of the materiality of the testimony was

correct.

IV.

CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing, we affirm the judgment granting Mr. Smith’s

motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of unseaworthiness. All costs of

this appeal are assessed against Weeks.

AFFIRMED.

21