BEN FRIBLEY, APPELLANT,
v.
BEBE, INC., A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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.
A seaman injured while boarding a purse boat brought a Jones Act negligence claim against his employer vessel. The trial judge set aside a jury verdict in the seaman's favor, but the appellate court reversed, holding that under the liberal proof standards for Jones Act cases, the jury's verdict finding the vessel undermanned and negligent was properly supported and must be reinstated.
The jury verdict for the seaman was properly supported and must be upheld. Under the liberal standards established by the United States Supreme Court for Jones Act cases, the jury's findings that the vessel was undermanned and that this condition played a role in the appellant's injury satisfied the minimal quantum of proof necessary to sustain a verdict for the plaintiff.
“Under certain circumstances the fact that a vessel is undermanned may be found to constitute unseaworthiness or negligence under the Jones Act.”
Establishes the legal principle that undermanning can support a Jones Act claim
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant worked as a crewman on the Kingfish, a fishing vessel owned by the appellee. On August 6, 1957, the vessel put to sea with a shorthanded…
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 Jones Act (46 U.S.C. § 688) cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is from a final judgment for the defendant entered by the trial judge after granting defendant’s motion to set aside the jury verdict for the plaintiff in an action brought under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 688, by a seaman against his employer for personal injuries sustained in the course of his employment on the high seas. From the evidence adduced at the trial the jury could have found that the appellant was a crewman on the Kingfish, a fishing vessel owned and operated by the appellee; that on August 6, 1957, the King-fish put to sea to begin fishing operations off the Mississippi coast with a shorthanded crew; that because of this situation the normal method of launching the purse boats which tend the fishing net was altered so that the appellant was required to board a purse boat standing along the port side of the Kingfish, rather than from the stern of that vessel as was the normal procedure; that in the course of boarding the purse boat appellant’s foot was caught and crushed between the two boats.
Under certain circumstances the fact that a vessel is undermanned may be found to constitute unseaworthiness or negligence under the Jones Act. Bradt v. United States et al., D.C.E.D.N.Y.1954, 122 F. Supp. 190; Turcich v. Liberty Corporation, 3 Cir., 1954, 217 F.2d 495; The Magdapur, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1933, 3 F.Supp. 971. The evaluation of the factual situation presented here was correctly submitted to the jury under proper instructions and they apparently found that the Kingfish was undermanned and that this fact played a part in producing the appellant’s injury.
Under the very liberal standards established by the United States Supreme Court and recognized by recent decisions of the *447Florida Supreme Court and this Court concerning the minimal quantum of proof necessary to uphold a jury verdict for the plaintiff under the Jones Act and the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq., we are compelled to reverse the judgment and remand the cause with instructions to enter a judgment for the appellant based upon the jury verdict. Conner v. Butler, 1960, 361 U.S. 29, 80 S.Ct. 21, 4 L.Ed.2d 10; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Barrett, Fla.1958, 101 So.2d 37; Gaymon v. Quinn Menhaden Fisheries of Texas, Inc., Fla.App.1960, 118 So.2d 42.
STURGIS, Acting Chief Judge, and FITZPATRICK, W. L., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McGLOSKEY v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 122 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)…gligence on the part of the employer coupled by direct or circumstantial evidence to the injury or death of an employee.” The same rule necessarily applies to claims for injuries that do not result in death. See Fribley v. Bebe, Inc., Fla.App.1960, 121 So. 2d 446. Defendant also contends that it was appellant’s responsibility as general superintendent of the wharf to eliminate or cover the hole through which he fell. Plaintiff responds by pointing out that the hole through which he fell had been there for t…
Authorities Cited
- Conner v. Butler, 361 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1959)
- Verla Mae Gaymon v. Quinn Menhaden Fisheries OF Tex., Inc., 118 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)
- Lawrence v. Hastings, 101 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 1958)
- Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Barrett, 101 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 1958)
- Turcich v. The Liberty Corp. in re Zvanja's Est., 217 F.2d 495 (3d Cir. 1954)