Plaintiff, 50 years old, was employed on a coal carrying vessel as a bosun for numerous years. A bosun helps the officers supervise the deck crew. At a certain port that the tanker visited, a portable gangway, called a brow was used for getting on and off the vessel. The brow acted as a bridge between the vessel and the platform tower on the dock. When rigging the brow to the tower platform it was the practice on Defendant’s vessel to remove an 8 foot section of the vessel’s railing. Given the width of the brow, this resulted in a 2-3 ft unprotected opening in the vessel’s railing on either side of the brow.

The procedure for bringing in the brow on the vessel had been in use for several years. The Defendant would have three to four crew members on each side of the brow line up in a row starting from the unprotected opening at the edge of the deck and extending toward the center of the vessel. On the count of three, 6-8 crew members would lift the brow, pull it inboard and set it down. This was repeated until the brow was moved to its storage position near the center of the vessel. During the course of this procedure, two of the crewmembers would be working at the edge of the deck adjacent to the 2-3 foot unprotected opening in the vessel’s railing.

The Plaintiff was injured while in the process of bringing in the brow. The Plaintiff has no memory of how the accident occurred. From testimony of the crew, it was learned that the Plaintiff and the other crew lined up alongside the brow with the Plaintiff standing at the edge of the deck next to the unprotected opening in the railing.
Three crewmembers were lined up on his right and four crewmembers where similarly lined up on the opposite side of the brow. The brow was brought most of the way onto the vessel to the point where the crew had to reposition to lift the dock end of the brow.

Somebody, yelled, “one - two - three” and the brow started moving after the count of two. The Plaintiff lost his balance and started falling toward the unprotected opening in the rail. The Plaintiff tried to catch himself but was unable to do so and fell over the side of the vessel, landing on the dock approximately 35 ft below. As a result of the fall, Plaintiff broke numerous bones in his body, suffered a variety of internal injuries with damage to various organs and was diagnosed with a severe traumatic brain injury with severe frontal lobe injury.

Liability focused on the failure of the Defendant to protect its crew from falling which is a known hazard in any industry. Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant was negligent in that it created an 8 ft opening in the rail of the vessel in order to place a 3 ft brow and thereby created a 2-3 foot unprotected opening in the railing at the edge of the deck on either side of the brow. The 2-3ft unprotected opening in the rail at the edge adjacent to a location where crewmembers where required to work created an unreasonable risk that a crewmember would fall overboard and sustain serious injury or death. It was claimed that Defendant was negligent in not identifying the fall hazard associated with bringing in the brow and protecting the crew members from this risk.

Defendant’s management did not take reasonable steps to inspect, identify, and eliminate foreseeable hazards on the vessel, and where those hazards could not be eliminated, the Defendant failed to take reasonable steps to provide equipment and establish procedures so as to protect its workers from a fall. Evidence was going to be presented that Defendant did not establish and/or enforce any type of job safety analysis or safety monitoring program to examine and inspect both routine tasks and new procedures for
fall hazards. In fact, Defendant approached safety on the vessel in a reactive manner, meaning that they would only analyze a procedure until an accident or injury occurred and was not proactive in preventing accidents.

Plaintiff’s claim of unseaworthiness focused on that the vessel had an unprotected opening in the rail in which a crew member could fall through when the brow was in place. Additionally, the vessel was unseaworthy in Defendant’s failure to provide and require equipment such as a safety net, safety harnesses or a temporary railing that could be used to protect and prevent crew members from falling over the edge.

Defendant claimed that Plaintiff was responsible for the operation as bosun, that since no prior accident had occurred over the years the procedure used therefore was safe and that Plaintiff was at fault for failing to use an available safety harness on the vessel. All officers of the crew testified that Plaintiff did nothing wrong to cause his accident and that there was no oral or written policy, practice or requirement that the any type of fall protection equipment like safety harnesses be used.

Plaintiff underwent medical treatment for approximately two years for both his neurological and orthopedic injuries. Plaintiff orthopedic injuries resolved resulting in
limitations with his left and right side. Plaintiff has neurocognitive impairments and due to the area of his brain that was injured, the Plaintiff suffers from severe anxiety, decreased patience, impulsivity, mood disturbances, and explosive anger which severely limits his interaction with his family and society. Plaintiff’s physical and emotional restrictions significantly impacts Plaintiff’s ability to function as he did prior to the accident.

Plaintiff was unable to return to any type of work as a result of the injury. Plaintiff expected to present evidence of a net loss of earning capacity of $1,000,000.00 and future medical treatment ranging from $1,100,000 to $3,000,000.00 if Plaintiff had to be institutionalized.

The case settled the morning of first day of trial.