 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ballard v. Serodino10/31/2005
I.
The defendant owns and operates several barges and towboats on the Tennessee River. For more than three years, the defendant employed the plaintiff as a deck hand on one of its towing vessels. At all relevant times, the plaintiff was working at one of the defendant's facilities on the Tennessee River in Chattanooga. This facility, commonly known to the defendant's employees as "the fleet," is a holding area for moored barges, i.e., those barges not then actively engaged in commerce on the river. The fleet area is divided into two sections - one section is designated as the holding area for barges loaded with commercial goods, while the other section is utilized to hold empty barges. The moored barges are linked to one another by ropes, or lines, and then tied to a work barge, which is the stationary barge closest to the bank of the river. At any given time, the fleet's configuration may span as many as six barges in width and five barges in length.
At 11:00 p.m., on November 24, 2001, the plaintiff began a six-hour shift at the defendant's fleet facility in Chattanooga. The weather was described as misty. At approximately 11:30 p.m., the plaintiff set out on the routine task of inspecting and securing the lines which tied the empty barges together. The plaintiff was equipped with a standard-size flashlight provided by the defendant to assist him in his work. While walking across an empty flat barge, which was located four to five barge-widths away from the shore and one to two barge-lengths down the river, the plaintiff stepped in an oily substance, lost his footing, and fell. As a result of the fall, he suffered injuries to his low back and left leg.
The plaintiff filed suit against the defendant under the Jones Act alleging that his injuries were proximately caused by the defendant's negligence in failing to maintain its barges in a safe and seaworthy manner and in failing to provide adequate lighting at the fleet facility. In its answer, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff was at fault in failing to exercise reasonable and ordinary care for his own safety. Specifically, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff was not paying attention to where he was walking at the time of the accident.
The case proceeded to trial before a jury. The jury returned the following verdict: (1) the barge upon which the plaintiff fell was not "unseaworthy," as that word is defined in the Jones Act; (2) the plaintiff and the defendant were both negligent; (3) 25% of the fault was attributable to the defendant; (4) 75% of the fault was that of the plaintiff's; and (5) the plaintiff sustained total damages in the amount of $150,000. Because the Jones Act provides for a system of pure comparative fault, the plaintiff was awarded 25% of his total damages, or $37,500. The plaintiff appeals.
II.
The plaintiff urges us to hold that the trial court erred when it denied his Motion to Alter or Amend and/or for a New Trial "where there is no material evidence to support a verdict of 75% negligence on the part of the plaintiff." He also contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict on the issue of his contributory fault.
Tennessee's adoption of a modified comparative fault in negligence actions changed the nature of the inquiry when a defendant alleges fault on the part of the plaintiff. The question is no longer whether the plaintiff was guilty of any fault; rather, the question is whether - assuming the plaintiff and the defendant are both guilty of fault that proximately causes the subject incident - the fault of the plaintiff is equal to or greater than the fault of the defendant. Eaton v. McLain, 891
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|