## Facts

- Rafael Colon was a seaman aboard the S.S. *Tillamook*, owned by Trinidad Corporation.
- Colon sought damages for personal injuries from shipboard incidents and also sought maintenance and cure.
- One claim involved an alleged slip-and-fall on a deck passageway. Colon asserted the area was “slippery,” and he was injured when he fell.
- Colon offered no supporting proof that the deck surface was in fact slippery or otherwise unsafe, and he pursued recovery on a theory that the vessel was responsible simply because he fell.
- The court treated Colon’s account of the deck accident as confused and based on conjecture, and found the evidence insufficient to show an unsafe deck condition.
- The action also included other claimed shipboard injury allegations, but the court’s analysis centered on whether Colon had proved a condition that made the vessel not reasonably fit for its intended use, rather than treating the shipowner as an insurer against every fall.
- The district court later issued an amended decision under the same caption (188 F. Supp. 803), adjusting aspects of the ruling without changing the requirement that the plaintiff prove an unreasonably dangerous condition to establish unseaworthiness.

## Issues

1. Whether a shipowner is liable for unseaworthiness when a seaman falls on a deck he describes as “slippery,” but the seaman offers no credible evidence that the deck was unreasonably slippery or otherwise not reasonably fit for its intended use.
2. Whether unseaworthiness (or negligence) can be established on an absolute-liability theory based only on the occurrence of a fall, without proof of an unsafe condition attributable to the vessel.

## Decision

- Judgment was entered for Trinidad Corporation on Colon’s personal-injury claims.
- The court held that Colon failed to prove the deck was unreasonably slippery or otherwise unsafe and therefore failed to establish unseaworthiness.
- The court rejected Colon’s attempt to recover on a theory that the shipowner was automatically liable merely because an accident occurred.
- Any later amendment to the decision did not change the central conclusion that proof of an unreasonably dangerous condition is required.

## Legal Principles

- A vessel is unseaworthy only if the ship, its equipment, or appurtenances are not reasonably fit for their intended use; the shipowner is not an insurer against every shipboard injury.
- In “slippery deck” cases, the standard is whether the deck was unreasonably slippery, not whether it could be described as slippery in some degree.
- The plaintiff bears the burden to prove the unsafe condition and causation; the mere fact that a seaman fell does not, by itself, establish unseaworthiness or negligence.
- Where the plaintiff’s account is not credited and there is no corroborating evidence of a hazardous condition, the claim fails.

## Conclusion

Colon could not recover because he relied on the fact of his fall and an unsupported assertion that the deck was slippery, rather than proving that the deck was unreasonably slippery or otherwise not reasonably fit for its intended use; unseaworthiness does not impose automatic liability for every accident aboard ship.


Colon v. Trinidad Corp., 188 F. Supp. 97 (1960)