## Facts

- Trevor E. Loose, an Australian citizen, worked as a mobile electronics operator in offshore seismic operations.
- Loose was assigned to the vessel *Deep Sea Explorer* during geophysical survey work.
- While disembarking via a gangplank from the *Deep Sea Explorer* (moored alongside another vessel), Loose fell and suffered injuries.
- Loose sued under the Jones Act and general maritime law, alleging employer negligence and vessel unseaworthiness.
- Multiple maritime entities involved in the project asserted cross-claims and third-party claims seeking indemnity or contribution based on their contractual and operational roles.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiff’s counsel’s “Golden Rule” closing argument improperly asked jurors to place themselves in the plaintiff’s position, and if so, whether the error required a new trial.
2. Whether the district court’s jury instructions and special interrogatories improperly handled multi-party maritime responsibility by failing to apply comparative fault principles to indemnity and allocation of liability.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit set aside the plaintiff’s verdict because plaintiff’s counsel made an improper and prejudicial Golden Rule argument in closing, and the trial court failed to cure the error.
- The court held that responsibility among the several maritime defendants also had to be reconsidered because the indemnity-related interrogatories did not apply comparative fault.
- The judgment was reversed or vacated to the extent it rested on the tainted verdict and the non-comparative-fault allocation, and the case was remanded for a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- A Golden Rule argument in closing—inviting jurors to award damages as they would wish for themselves—exceeds proper advocacy and risks verdicts based on passion or personal interest rather than evidence.
- When an improper Golden Rule argument is permitted without effective corrective action (such as curative instructions), reversal may be required if the error is prejudicial.
- In multi-party maritime injury litigation, liability among potentially responsible parties should be allocated according to comparative fault rather than through an all-or-nothing allocation driven by outdated indemnity concepts.
- Jury interrogatories and instructions in maritime cases must be structured to permit comparative allocation of responsibility among the employer, vessel owner, operator, and other involved entities, absent a valid contractual basis for shifting the entire loss.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit ordered a new trial because an uncured Golden Rule closing argument tainted the verdict and because the jury’s interrogatories did not require comparative-fault allocation of responsibility among the maritime defendants, requiring reconsideration of fault and related indemnity issues on remand.


Loose v. Offshore Navigation, Inc., 670 F.2d 493 (5th Cir. 1982)