Latest News

Ninth Circuit Affirms District Court Defense Ruling

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s ruling for defendant American Seafoods Company LLC on the personal injury liability claims of former F/T NORTHERN JAEGER crewmember Trung Le. In this matter, LeGros Buchanan and Paul attorney Eric R. McVittie represented defendant American Seafoods Company LLC.

Former F/T NORTHERN JAEGER crewmember Trung Le brought suit, in Federal District Court for the Western District of Washington (No. C06-130JLR), against his employer American Seafoods Company, LLC—alleging that he fell while attempting to dislodge a box from the “boxilator,” a machine that elevates boxes from the hold of the ship, and attributing the fall to the listing of the ship, any icy floor at his work station, and the flawed design of the boxilator. Defendant denied any negligence or unseaworthiness, and further claimed that Plaintiff Le’s allegations as to certain aspects of his alleged ailments (degree of shoulder injury and ear trauma) were fraudulent in light of medical records establishing pre-existing conditions.

A five day bench trial in front of the Honorable James L. Robart commenced on December 3, 2007. At trial, the Defendant presented testimony from coworkers that directly contradicted Plaintiff’s injury theories as well as expert testimony discrediting the Plaintiff’s. Ultimately, the Court found that Le’s testimony regarding the incident was not credible, and that no other crewmember could verify the allegedly negligence/unseaworthy conditions (ship listing, ice in work area, defective boxilator design). Ultimately, the Court held that American Seafoods Company “did not fail to provide a safe workplace, to supervise, or to provide a safe offload procedure,” and that Plaintiff Le could not meet his burden of establishing any injury due to Defendant’s negligence or the unseaworthiness of the vessel. Plaintiff’s liability claims were dismissed with prejudice and judgment entered for Defendant. A copy of Judge Robart’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law is attached.

Plaintiff appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals arguing that the trial court incorrectly assessed his credibility, and the credibility of other testifying crewmember witnesses, and that the trial court’s decision contained the “novel ruling” that seaman must tolerate icy deck conditions in the workplace. Defendant asserted that there was no basis to undermine, let alone clear error in, the trial court’s assessment of Le’s credibility relative to that of other crewmember witnesses. Defendant further argued that the trial court’s observations that seaman must occasionally tolerate certain work conditions were irrelevant to the ultimate finding in this case that icy conditions were not responsible for Le’s alleged injuries. Ultimately, Defendant argued that the trial court’s decision was well grounded in law and the evidence presented at trial and should be affirmed by the appellate court.
The Ninth Circuit, without oral argument, fully affirmed the District Court’s factual findings and legal conclusions. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit noted the special deference accorded to the trial court’s credibility determinations, and found no basis for reversing the finding that Le’s testimony was neither credible nor consistent.

The Ninth Circuit further disregarded Le’s attempt to categorize the trial court’s ruling as creating “novel” parameters for seaman’s personal injury claims. Rather, the Ninth Circuit emphasized that the trial court’s ruling was based on the finding that “[t]he accident was not caused by ice that created unsafe, slippery conditions”—making any observations by the trial court into the possibility of icy conditions on fishing vessels, in general, irrelevant. The Ninth Circuit fully affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s liability claims.


« Return to Latest News