## Facts

- Charles D. Gautreaux worked for Scurlock Marine, Inc. as a Jones Act seaman and relief captain aboard the M/V BROOKE LYNN.
- The vessel had two bow winches: a starboard hydraulic winch and a port electric winch; the electric winch included a manual crank to use if the electric controls failed or the winch became bound.
- While using the manual crank on the port electric winch, Gautreaux injured his back.
- Gautreaux sued under the Jones Act and general maritime law, alleging negligence (including inadequate training) and unseaworthiness.
- A jury found Scurlock Marine negligent and the vessel unseaworthy, awarding damages, after being instructed that a seaman owes only “slight care” for his own safety.
- A Fifth Circuit panel affirmed under then-existing circuit formulations; the court reheard the case en banc to reconsider the seaman’s self-care standard in comparative fault.

## Issues

1. In a Jones Act negligence case, what standard governs a seaman’s contributory negligence: “slight care” or ordinary prudence under the circumstances as measured by a reasonably prudent seaman?
2. Whether the “slight care” jury instruction misstated the law and required reconsideration of comparative fault.

## Decision

- The en banc court held a seaman’s duty to protect himself is ordinary prudence under the circumstances, assessed by what a reasonably prudent seaman would do in like conditions, considering the seaman’s experience, training, and education.
- The court rejected and overruled prior circuit precedent suggesting a reduced “slight care” duty for seamen’s self-protection.
- The court affirmed Scurlock Marine’s liability finding but vacated the comparative fault allocation to the extent it rested on the erroneous “slight care” instruction.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings on comparative fault under the corrected standard.

## Legal Principles

- In Jones Act cases, a seaman’s contributory negligence is measured by ordinary prudence under the circumstances, not a diminished “slight care” standard.
- “Ordinary prudence” is applied occupationally: the benchmark is a reasonably prudent seaman in like circumstances, including the plaintiff’s experience, training, and education at the time of injury.
- A shipowner’s heightened duty to provide a reasonably safe place to work and the relaxed causation standard for Jones Act liability do not reduce the seaman’s own duty of reasonable self-care.
- Incorrect comparative-fault instructions that lower the seaman’s duty of care warrant vacatur and remand when they may have affected fault apportionment.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit (en banc) aligned a Jones Act seaman’s self-care obligation with ordinary negligence doctrine by adopting an “ordinary prudent seaman under the circumstances” standard and rejecting “slight care,” affirming liability but requiring reassessment of comparative fault under the correct instruction.


Gautreaux v. Scurlock Marine, Inc., 107 F.3d 331 (5th Cir. 1997) (en banc)