## Facts

- Lester P. Comeaux, Sr., a seaman employed as a mate, worked on the dredge *ARMADILLO* and its tender vessels, including the *MISS FRANCES*.
- Comeaux’s duties included maintaining a floating discharge pipeline and replacing batteries in warning lights positioned along the line, tasks performed from the *MISS FRANCES* while stepping onto the pontoon line/catwalk.
- When Comeaux reported for an 11:00 p.m. shift, the regular deckhands and boathands had quit, leaving him without a trained crew.
- Comeaux advised his supervisor that operations should be suspended due to rough weather and lack of crew, but he was instructed to continue dredging and use a galley worker, Larry Tucker, as his only helper.
- Tucker lacked training and experience for deckhand/boathand duties and had difficulty keeping the *MISS FRANCES* positioned safely during the battery-change task.
- While Comeaux was on the pontoon line, the *MISS FRANCES*, operated by Tucker, moved over him and caused serious injuries.
- Comeaux also alleged injuries from a second work-related accident, but the appeal primarily concerned the first accident and the *MISS FRANCES*.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence required a directed verdict that the *MISS FRANCES* was unseaworthy because it was operated with an inadequate and incompetent crew.
2. Whether the district court erred by submitting unseaworthiness to the jury and denying Comeaux’s directed-verdict motion.
3. What scope of further proceedings was required after correcting the unseaworthiness determination.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit reversed in part and remanded.
- It held Comeaux was entitled to a directed verdict on unseaworthiness as to the *MISS FRANCES* because the undisputed facts established unseaworthiness as a matter of law.
- The district court erred by allowing the jury to find no unseaworthiness and by denying the directed-verdict motion on that claim.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the directed finding of unseaworthiness (including remaining questions such as causation and damages tied to that theory).

## Legal Principles

- A shipowner has an absolute, nondelegable duty to provide a seaworthy vessel, which includes a competent and adequate crew.
- A vessel may be unseaworthy due to personnel conditions, including (a) an insufficient crew for assigned tasks, or (b) assignment of an incompetent or untrained person to work requiring skill and experience.
- When material facts establishing unseaworthiness are undisputed, and no reasonable jury could find seaworthiness under controlling law, a directed verdict is required.
- Jones Act negligence and unseaworthiness are distinct bases of liability; a negligence finding does not resolve unseaworthiness, but undisputed crew inadequacy can compel unseaworthiness as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that operating the *MISS FRANCES* with no trained deck crew and using an untrained galley worker for critical boat-handling duties rendered the vessel unseaworthy as a matter of law, requiring a directed verdict and remand for further proceedings consistent with that determination.


Comeaux v. T. L. James & Co., 666 F.2d 294 (5th Cir. 1982)