Vilmos Fuszek v Royal King Fisheries (9th Cir. 1996)
The F/T ROYAL SEA was fishing and processing cod in the Bering Sea.
Fuszek served aboard as a machine technician in the processing area maintaining and operating a Baader 99 filleting machine. Fuszek reached into the running machine to clear a jam and the glove on his right hand caught the moving gear. The machine had most of its original safety features removed. In order to avoid processing delays, the factory superintendent adopted a policy of clearing jams with the machine running.
The District Court entered a judgment in favor of Fuszek but reduced his damages by 25% based on the court's findings that he contributed to his injuries.
On appeal, Fuszek contended that the district court erred by reducing his damage award because the federal statutory law effectively overrides the maritime common law doctrine of comparative fault in situations in which seamen are injured by machinery that is not in compliance with federal safety regulations.
In 1908, Congress passed the first of what came to be known as the Federal Employers' Liability Acts, and there fore effectively abrogated the doctrine of contributory negligence in favor of comparative fault for railroad employees. See 45 USC 53. The Jones Act grants to seamen the rights and remedies available to railroad workers under FELA. See 46 USC 688(a). (Any seaman who shall suffer personal injury in the course of his employment may . . . maintain an action for damages at law . . . and in such action all statutes of the United States modifying or extending the common-law right or remedy in cases of personal injury to railway employees shall apply.")
Section 3 of FELA provides:
In all actions. . . brought against any . . . common carrier . . . to recover damages for personal injuries to an employee,. . . the fact that the employee may have been guilty of contributory negligence shall not bar a recovery, but damages shall be diminished by the jury in proportion to the amount of negligence attributed to such employee: Provided, That no such employee who may be injured . . . shall be held to have been guilty of contributory negligence in any case where a violation by such common carrier of any statute enacted for the safety of the employees contributed to the injury . . . of such employee. 45 USC 53.
One example of just such a "statute enacted for the safety of employees" (viz., seamen) is 46 USC 4502(b)(2)(G). That statute provides, in relevant part, that "the secretary shall prescribe regulations requiring installation, maintenance, and use of . . .equipment . . . required to minimize the risk of injury to the crew . . .
Subsequently, the Coast Guard issued promulgated 46 CFR 28.215 applicable to fishing vessels. That regulation required all exposed machinery on board to have suitable hand covers. Fuszek's injury resulted from the lack of such a cover. The court agreed that this fell under FELA citing Roy Crook & Sons, Inc. v Allen, 778 F.2d 1037 (5th Cir. 1986) and Smith v Trans-World Drilling Co., 772 F.2d 157, 160 (5th Cir. 1985), holding they were consistent with its own decision in Kopczynski v. The Jacqueline, 742 F.2d 555 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 471 US 1136.
The Circuit Court reversed the comparative negligence reduction.
Home ! Search Page ! Master index ! Table of Contents this newsletter