## Facts

- Harold Vargas and Columbus Baker were seamen employed by Robert C. McNamara III in anticipation of a fishing trip on McNamara’s vessel, the NORA.
- Before the trip, McNamara directed them to perform repair and cleaning work while the NORA was at Cape Cod Marine Services’ boat yard.
- McNamara instructed Vargas and Baker to clean the vessel’s engine room using equipment and supplies that included a spray gun, an industrial solvent, and a steam cleaner.
- Vargas and Baker were not provided respirators or other protective equipment for using the solvent in the engine room.
- While spraying the solvent in the confined engine-room space, they inhaled fumes and suffered adverse physical effects.
- Vargas and Baker sued in federal district court, primarily asserting Jones Act negligence against McNamara and related negligence claims against Cape Cod Marine Services.
- After plaintiffs rested, the district court denied a motion to amend the complaint to add an express unseaworthiness claim and directed verdicts for defendants on negligence.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence, viewed favorably to plaintiffs, was sufficient to allow a jury to find Jones Act negligence by McNamara and negligence by Cape Cod Marine Services based on foreseeable solvent-fume hazards and failure to provide a safe method or protective equipment.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend during trial to add an unseaworthiness claim where the proof concerned the vessel’s condition and work equipment and defendants were not materially prejudiced.

## Decision

- The First Circuit reversed the directed verdicts on the negligence claims.
- The court held that the evidence permitted a reasonable inference that defendants knew or should have known of the risk of toxic fumes from an industrial solvent used in a confined engine room without protective gear.
- The First Circuit also reversed the denial of leave to amend to plead unseaworthiness.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings, allowing the negligence and unseaworthiness theories to be presented to the factfinder.

## Legal Principles

- In Jones Act cases, the threshold for jury submission is low; a directed verdict is improper if a reasonable jury could find employer negligence played any part, even the slightest, in causing the injury.
- Foreseeability and constructive knowledge may be inferred from circumstances, including the nature of an industrial chemical, the confined workspace, and the absence of protective equipment, without requiring detailed technical proof of product chemistry.
- Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, leave to amend should be freely granted when justice requires, particularly where the amendment conforms pleadings to proof and does not unfairly prejudice the opposing party.
- Unseaworthiness may be tried alongside Jones Act negligence when the operative facts concern whether the vessel, its equipment, or work methods were reasonably fit for their intended use.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit held that plaintiffs presented enough evidence to reach a jury on negligence and that the district court should have permitted amendment to add unseaworthiness, reversing and remanding for further proceedings.


Vargas v. McNamara, 608 F.2d 15 (1st Cir. 1979)