DONNA THORNTON, APPELLANT,
v.
STEINER PRODUCTS, LTD., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Donna Thornton, a hairdresser employed by Steiner Products aboard a cruise ship, appealed a summary judgment dismissing her Jones Act negligence claim arising from a slip-and-fall accident on the ship's deck. The court affirmed, holding that Steiner Products had no duty to maintain the deck because it was controlled and maintained by the cruise ship owner, not the employer.
The defendant employer had no legal duty to maintain the deck where the plaintiff slipped and was injured because the deck was controlled and maintained entirely by the cruise ship. The cruise ship's negligence in maintaining the deck cannot be imputed to the employer, and accordingly, the employer cannot be held liable for the plaintiff's injuries.
[1] An employer's duty to maintain a safe workplace does not extend to areas of a vessel that are controlled and maintained by the vessel owner, not the employer.
[2] An employer is not liable for the negligence of a cruise line in maintaining the ship's decks, even if the employee is injured on those decks.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the defendant was, as a matter of law, not guilty of any negligence in the accident sued upon. The defendant had no duty to maintain the deck on which the plaintiff slipped and was injured; the deck was controlled and maintained entirely by the cruise ship.”
Establishes the core holding that the employer had no legal duty regarding the deck's maintenance because it was not the employer's responsibility.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThornton was employed as a hairdresser aboard the TSS Mardi Gras cruise ship, working under a manager with four other hairstylists employed by Steiner…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Imputed Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff Donna Thornton from an adverse final summary judgment in an action for Jones Act negligence, 46 U.S.C.App. § 688 (1985), against her employer, the defendant Steiner Products, Ltd. The plaintiff was employed as a hairdresser aboard the TSS Mardi Gras, a cruise ship owned by Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc.; she worked under a manager and with four other hairstylists employed by the defendant. The action arises from a slip-and-fall accident in which the plaintiff sustained injuries while en route to the ship hospital for an examination; the accident occurred on a slippery deck maintained by the cruise ship and outside the confines of the beauty salon where the plaintiff worked.
We affirm the final summary judgment under review because, simply stated, the defendant was, as a matter of law, not guilty of any negligence in the accident sued upon. The defendant had no duty to maintain the deck on which the plaintiff slipped and was injured; the deck was controlled and maintained entirely by the cruise ship. In this respect, we do not agree with the plaintiff that the defendant’s duty to maintain a safe workplace for the plaintiff extended to the deck where the plaintiff was injured; accordingly, the cruise line’s negligence in maintaining the deck cannot, as urged, be imputed to the defendant. Cortes v. Baltimore Insular Line, 287 U.S. 367, 53 S.Ct. 173, 77 L.Ed. 368 (1932); Marvin v. Central Gulf Lines, Inc., 554 F. 2d 1295 (5th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1035, 98 S.Ct. 769, 54 L.Ed.2d 782 (1978); Perry v. Morgan Guar. Trust Co. of N.Y., 528 F. 2d 1378 (5th Cir.1976); Rice v. Atlantic Gulf & Pac. Co., 484 F. 2d 1318 (2d Cir.1973); Mah- ramas v. American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc., 475 F. 2d 165 (2d Cir.1973); Castro v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc., 325 F. 2d 72 (2d Cir.1963).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Cortes v. Baltimore Insular Line, Inc., 287 U.S. 367 (U.S. 1932)
- Weinberger v. Equifax, 434 U.S. 1035 (U.S. 1978)
- Albert v. First Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. of Marquette, 434 U.S. 1035 (U.S. 1978)
- Mahramas v. Am. Exp. Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc., 475 F.2d 165 (2d Cir. 1973)
- Whitford A. Rice v. Atl. Gulf & Pac. Co., 484 F.2d 1318 (2d Cir. 1973)
- Darrel George Perry v. Morgan Guar. Tr. Co. OF NEW York, 528 F.2d 1378 (5th Cir. 1976)
- Castro v. Moore-McCORMACK Lines, Inc., 325 F.2d 72 (2d Cir. 1963)
- Marvin v. Cent. Gulf Lines, Inc., 554 F.2d 1295 (5th Cir. 1977)