Richardson v. SEACOR Lifeboats, LLC

Filing 74

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ANTHONY RICHARDSON, JR.,
Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 14-1712

SEACOR LIFTBOATS, LLC
Defendant

SECTION "E"

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Plaintiff, Anthony Richardson, Jr. (“Richardson”), asserts ordinary negligence
claims pursuant to the general maritime law against Defendant, SEACOR Liftboats LLC
(“SEACOR”), the operator of the SEACOR INTERVENTION (“INTERVENTION”).
Richardson alleges he sustained personal injury during a crane personnel basket
transfer from the SEACOR INTERVENTION to the M/V CHASE. The questions
presented at the trial were whether SEACOR was negligent and, if so, whether this
negligence was the legal cause of Richardson’s injuries.
This matter was tried before the Court, sitting without a jury, over three days.1
The Court heard testimony from Jed Johnson, Carlos Herbert, Jack Madeley, Anthony
Richardson, Jr., Dr. Paul Fenn, Dr. Angel Roman, Dr. Kenneth McCoin, Ryan Ross, Dr.
Gordon Nutik, Dr. Kenneth Boudreaux, Dr. Larry Stokes, K.C. Guidry, and Robert
Watson and admitted into evidence the deposition of Captain James Dean.2 Having
considered the testimony and evidence at trial, the arguments of counsel, and the
applicable law, the Court now issues the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a). To the extent any finding
1
2

R. Docs. 69, 71, and 72 (minute entries for proceedings held June 15, 2015 through June 17, 2015).
Trial Exhibit 54.

1

of fact may be construed as a conclusion of law, the Court adopts it as such. To the
extent any conclusion of law may be construed as a finding of fact, the Court adopts it as
such.
FINDINGS OF FACT
On April 21, 2013, Richardson was employed by Greene’s Energy Group as an
offshore technician working aboard the INTERVENTION, a liftboat operated and
manned by SEACOR. After a morning safety meeting on April 21, 2013, Richardson and
two other workers, Carlos Herbert and Randy Rodriguez, were scheduled to return to
shore. To get them from the INTERVENTION to the waiting crew boat, the M/V
CHASE, a hydraulic crane was used to conduct a Billy Pugh personnel basket transfer.
Richardson had completed personnel basket transfers numerous times before April 21,
2013. He had been adequately trained on how to safely ride personnel baskets.
The crane on the INTERVENTION, used to lift the basket from the
INTERVENTION to the M/V CHASE, was operated by Jed Johnson (“Johnson”), a
SEACOR employee. Johnson was an experienced, certified crane operator who was
qualified and capable of performing personnel basket transfers.3 The sea and weather
conditions at the time of the incident were appropriate for performing personnel basket
transfers, even though there were three-foot to four-foot choppy seas and rolling waves
known as swells. There were no mechanical issues with the crane, and the hydraulic
crane was mechanically incapable of lowering the personnel basket in a free-fall.
These basic facts found by the Court above are not in dispute, but there are two
divergent versions of how events unfolded during the actual transfer: Richardson’s
3 Johnson testified that he was a Class A crane operator and had performed thousands of personnel basket
transfers at the time of the incident.

2

version—supported by his testimony and that of his co-worker Carlos Herbert
(“Herbert”)—and Johnson’s version—supported by his testimony and that of Ryan Ross
(“Ross”), K.C. Guidry (“Guidry”), and Captain James Dean (“Captain Dean”).
The Incident
Richardson testified at trial the basket transfer started off normally, but that once
the basket cleared the INTERVENTION deck and was over the water, Johnson lowered
the basket at an unsafe speed and then brought it to an abrupt stop. Richardson testified
that, after a few seconds, or maybe even a minute, the basket felt like it went into an
eight-foot to ten-foot free-fall. Richardson testified he had one foot on the basket and
one foot slightly off the basket in a bracing position, as he was trained. He testified the
basket slammed onto the deck of the M/V CHASE, and he never stepped or jumped off
the basket before it landed. Richardson further testified that, when he tried to exit the
basket after it slammed onto the deck, Johnson jerked the basket back into the air
before Richardson had fully disembarked, causing Richardson’s foot to become tangled
in the netting of the personnel basket and his leg to be raised about chest high.
Richardson testified a deckhand helped keep him from falling to the deck after he
extricated himself from the basket. Richardson testified at trial his hip and back had
been injured during the incident but also testified that he did not feel any back pain the
day the incident occurred and was able to carry his bags weighing approximately 30
pounds from the crew boat.
Richardson testified that immediately after the personnel basket transfer he
reported the incident to the captain of the M/V Chase, Captain Dean, and that Captain
Dean told him he saw the three workers jump off the basket. Richardson testified he
immediately told Captain Dean this was not true. Less than 30 minutes after the

3

incident occurred, Richardson filled out an incident report apparently provided to him
by Captain Dean.4 Under the section of the report labeled “detailed description of
incident,” Richardson wrote: “Personnel basket was operated wrecklessly [sic].
Personnel was lowered on basket, when personnel was exiting basket[,] basket lifted
while one leg was still on basket. Medical attention not necessary at the present time of
incident.” Richardson did not make any specific mention in the report of the basket
being lowered extremely quickly, dropping eight to ten feet in a free-fall, or slamming
onto the deck of the M/V CHASE. In the section labeled “nature of injury,” Richardson
reported there was injury to his “leg.”
Later that same day, Richardson filled out a handwritten statement for his
employer, Greene’s Energy Group.5 In the statement, Richardson wrote:
[The three workers] were being lowered on to the boat via personnel
basket, when the crane operator let the personnel basket down extremely
fast. The basket hit the boat deck, while [Richardson] was in a bracing
position, in fear that the basket would strike the deck abruptly, with one
leg bent on the basket, and the other leg slightly off to absorb the impact.
[T]he crane operator jolted the basket and crane upward as if trying to jar
[Richardson] from the basket, because of the basket striking the deck,
[Richardson’s] foot got caught in the nets. When [the crane operator]
picked up on the basket with the crane he pulled [Richardson’s] leg
upward hyperextending it towards [Richardson’s] face. Once [the crane
operator] saw [Richardson] in an awkward position he quickly drop [sic]
the basket causing [Richardson] to trip backward, the boat hand caught
[Richardson] and [Richardson’s] hard hat flew off.”
Richardson also mentions in this statement that Captain Dean “accused [Richardson] of
lying about the incident saying the [three workers] jumped off [the basket] before it hit
the deck, when clearly there is no way that happened if [Richardson’s] leg was caught on
the basket. . . .”
4
5

Trial Exhibit 2.
Trial Exhibit 25.

4

Richardson admitted at trial that he was trained not to step off the basket before
it safely lands on the deck of an awaiting vessel, though he stated he was trained to have
one foot off the basket preparing to step off the basket once it lands. Although
Richardson wrote in his Greene’s statement and testified at trial that he had one foot
slightly off the basket in a bracing position before it landed, Richardson testified at his
deposition that he had two feet on the ring when the personnel basket hit the deck of the
crew boat. The inconsistency in Richardson’s testimony on this major point of
contention and other inconsistencies undermine Richardson’s credibility.6
Another Greene’s Energy Group employee riding the personnel basket, Carlos
Herbert, testified at trial and gave a very similar version of events to that given by
Richardson. During the basket transfer, Herbert testified the crane operator started
dropping them rapidly. When the basket hit the deck of the M/V CHASE, Herbert
testified he quickly got off the basket, but Richardson was unable to get off as quickly.
Herbert testified Johnson then lifted the basket, and Herbert saw Richardson’s leg in
the air caught on the basket.
Herbert also gave a handwritten statement to his employer, Greene’s Energy Group.7
Herbert wrote in the statement: “Being lowered from the life boat to crew boat by man
lift, when the crane operator started letting the basket down extremely to [sic] fast. The
For example, Richardson has been out of work for two years. At trial, Richardson listed a number of
employers he remembered applying to for light duty jobs, but at his deposition, Richardson could not
name any of those employers when asked. Additionally, Richardson has been performing numerous
exercises, such as a modified version of P90x, agility exercises, squats, sit-ups, push-ups, jogging stadium
stairs, and riding stationary bikes, with little to no pain. However, Richardson never told this to his
treating physician, Dr. Fenn, and Richardson also admitted at trial that he did not inform Dr. Fenn of
some of his prior medical history and his alcohol and drug use history. Defendant’s independent medical
examiner, Dr. Gordon Nutik, also met with Richardson. At that time, Richardson told Dr. Nutik he had
back pain on the day of the incident, although Richardson testified at trial that he did not initially have
back pain and did not list an injury to his back on the incident reports. Dr. Nutik also stated that there
were inconsistencies during his physical examination of Richardson, and his opinion was that Richardson
was controlling and manipulating the results of the exam.
7 Trial Exhibit 43.
6

5

basket hit the deck. The crane operator suddenly picked up on basket making
[Richardson] do a [split] then lowering the basket back down . . . .” Herbert’s statement
also references the fact that Captain Dean told the three workers who were transferred
that they jumped off the basket before it landed, and Herbert wrote this statement was
“not a true statement.” Much of the language in Herbert’s statement mirrored
Richardson’s statement. Herbert testified he was trained to have one foot off the basket
waiting to land but admitted he was never trained to jump from a personnel basket,
even if he thought it was going too fast, because such an action would be unsafe.
Herbert’s testimony differs from that of Richardson with respect to how many
times the basket stopped before it finally landed on the deck of the crew boat. There also
are numerous inconsistencies within Herbert’s own testimony. At trial, Herbert testified
that he had one foot off the basket preparing to disembark once the basket landed on the
deck of the M/V CHASE and that he got off the basket once it landed and absolutely did
not jump off the basket prematurely. However, in a previous statement given to an
investigator, he said he got off the basket before it hit the deck and was “able to get off
real fast because I’m already thinking you know when this basket comes close I’m
jumping off anyway.”8 He said he “timed it” because “he was scared.”9 Additionally,
when asked at trial how familiar he was with Richardson, Herbert testified that he
worked four or five different jobs with Richardson prior to the incident, but in the
statement to the investigator he stated he worked on over fifty jobs with Richardson.10
Johnson, the crane operator, and other workers on the INTERVENTION and
M/V CHASE painted a very different and more credible picture of what occurred during
Trial Exhibit 45–319.
Id.
10 Id. 45–324.
8
9

6

the transfer. Johnson testified at trial that everything about that day and the beginning
of the personnel basket transfer was normal. He stopped the basket about four to six
feet above the deck of the M/V CHASE to evaluate sea conditions and to give Captain
Dean the opportunity to reposition the M/V CHASE, if necessary. Based on his
experience as a crane operator, Johnson testified the correct method of lowering a
personnel basket when the waiting vessel is riding a swell is to wait until the vessel gets
to the crest of the swell and then lower the basket to the deck as the boat descends to the
bottom of the trough and immediately slack off the crane line suspending the basket.
Johnson testified that, when the basket was stationary four to six feet above the
deck, the M/V CHASE came up on a swell. The boat’s rise on the swell caused the gap
between the basket and the deck of the M/V CHASE to lessen to about a one-foot to twofoot gap. Johnson testified that, when the boat was at the crest of the swell, Richardson
took one foot off the basket and attempted to step onto the deck before the basket
landed. While Richardson was attempting to step off the basket with one foot, the vessel
descended to the trough of the swell, and the gap between the basket and the deck
increased. Johnson testified he feared Richardson would fall off the basket completely,
so he had to react quickly and get the basket on the deck as soon as possible for
Richardson’s safety. Johnson testified that, when a rider steps off the basket too early
and it appears the rider may fall, the crane operator is trained to slack off the crane line
completely and get the basket on the deck as soon as possible. In this case, Johnson
quickly lowered the basket to the deck and slacked off the line completely to land the
basket on the deck and keep it there. Johnson testified this was the only way to
eliminate the gap between the basket and the deck and to keep Richardson from falling
from a dangerous height. Johnson testified that, once he lowered the basket to the deck,

7

he never lifted it again until the men had retrieved their bags and exited the basket.
Johnson testified the proper training for riders in a personnel basket transfer is
to keep both feet on the basket until the basket lands on the deck. Although Johnson
testified that he often sees people taking a foot off the basket a second or two before it
touches in anticipation of dismounting and stepping off the basket, it is not common for
people to do so when the basket is still one or two feet above the deck. He also testified
Richardson was not merely stepping off the basket at the last minute as the basket was
landing on the deck, but rather Richardson was dangling one foot off the basket and
trying to step onto the deck as the boat fell on the swell. Johnson testified he was
concerned that Richardson would fall off the basket and onto the deck of the crew boat if
Johnson did not immediately lower the basket.
Johnson’s testimony was corroborated by that of Ryan Ross (“Ross”), who was
subpoenaed to testify at trial. Ross is a certified crane operator who worked for SEACOR
at time of the incident and was aboard the INTERVENTION when it occurred. He was
not involved in the transfer itself but testified that he witnessed the events unfold. Ross
also testified that he was trained to maintain two feet on the basket with bent knees
until the basket securely lands on deck—never to take one foot off the basket before that
time. Although he had seen people take one foot off in anticipation of landing, and may
have even done so himself at times, he stated this is not how personnel are trained. Ross
testified that anytime he or others had taken a foot off the basket, it had been only when
the basket was about to touch the deck.
With respect to the events in question, Ross testified he witnessed the basket stop
about four or five feet above the deck of the crew boat. He said the crew boat rose on a
wave and at that point he saw Richardson step off the basket. At the moment

8

Richardson stepped off, the crew boat began falling off the wave. Ross testified that
Johnson then lowered the basket to the deck. Ross testified there is no training for crane
operators on how to handle this exact situation—the operator just must use his
experience to do whatever is best to protect the safety of the rider. Ross further testified
the basket did not free-fall or slam into the deck, he did not see Richardson’s foot get
caught in the webbing of the basket, and the crane operator never lifted the basket back
up until all personnel were off the basket.
K.C. Guidry (“Guidry”), a worker aboard the INTERVENTION who had never
worked for SEACOR or any of its companies, also was subpoenaed and gave testimony
corroborating Johnson’s testimony at trial. Guidry testified he received training
concerning personnel basket transfers at three companies, and all of the training was
essentially the same—workers are trained to keep both feet on the basket until it lands.
He had never been trained to take one foot off before it lands. However, he testified at
times he would take one foot off to prepare to land but admitted this can be unsafe.
Guidry testified that during the personnel basket transfer, he never saw the basket
lowered extremely quickly. Rather, it descended slowly and steadily all the way down to
the deck of the crew boat. He did not see the basket slam down onto the deck. According
to Guidry, when the basket was about two or three feet away from the deck of the crew
boat, he saw Richardson step off the basket before the basket touched the deck of the
crew boat. At that point, he saw Johnson quickly lower the basket to the deck. Guidry
testified the basket was never lifted back in the air until after the men exited and
retrieved their bags.
Johnson’s version of events is further corroborated by the deposition testimony
of Captain Dean, an employee of Alliance Offshore, LLC at the time of the incident.

9

Captain Dean witnessed the transfer from the M/V CHASE and testified at his
deposition that the basket was lowered at a normal rate of speed. Further, he testified
that he saw Richardson jump or step off the basket before the basket landed on the deck
of the M/V CHASE while the basket was around one or two feet above the deck. Captain
Dean stated there was no free-fall of the basket, and Richardson’s foot never got stuck in
the webbing.
The Court does not find the testimony of Richardson and Herbert credible as to
how the events unfolded during the personnel basket transfer. Instead, the Court finds
the testimony of Johnson, Ross, Guidry, and Captain Dean more credible and accepts
their testimony as fact. Neither Guidry nor Captain Dean has ever had an employment
relationship with SEACOR, and both corroborated Johnson’s testimony. Ross, who also
corroborated Johnson’s testimony, no longer works for SEACOR. Ross and Guidry were
subpoenaed to testify at trial.
The Court finds that the personnel basket transfer was conducted at an
appropriate rate of speed. When the basket was stationary above the deck of the M/V
CHASE and before the basket had securely landed on the deck, Richardson prematurely
stepped one foot off the basket and attempted to step on to the deck. As he did so, the
crew boat fell off the swell, increasing the gap between the basket and the deck, and as a
result Richardson was unable to step onto the deck. Johnson believed that Richardson
was in danger of falling off the basket and, in response, lowered the basket to the deck.
Johnson did not lift the basket until Richardson and the other riders had retrieved their
bags and completely exited the basket.
The Experts
Both Richardson and SEACOR had experts testify concerning the proper way to

10

conduct personnel basket transfers. Plaintiff’s expert, Jack Madeley (“Madeley”), was a
certified crane operator over 30 years ago. Now, he regularly testifies in a wide variety of
safety cases. The safety of crane personnel basket transfers is not his primary area of
expertise, and the Court finds that his experience and expertise with respect to crane
operations, and particularly with respect to training personnel basket riders and crane
operators, does not match that of SEACOR’s expert.
At trial, Madeley admitted that Johnson was properly trained and certified as a
crane operator to conduct personnel basket transfers. Madeley’s testimony at trial was
that during this particular transfer, Johnson failed to safely land the basket on the deck
and failed to comply with industry standards for conducting basket transfers. Madeley
testified that the proper time to set a personnel basket down on the deck of a waiting
crew boat when there are swells is at the moment the boat is at crest of a swell, at which
time the crane operator should immediately slack off the line so that the basket will stay
on the deck as the vessel descends. In this case, Madeley testified Johnson failed to
begin lowering the basket as the M/V CHASE neared the crest of the swell. However,
Madeley could point to no authority to support his position that this method of lowering
the basket is the industry standard. In fact, Madeley admitted at trial that crane
operators determine how and when they will actually lower the basket to the deck
differently based upon conditions at the time. Madeley later testified he believed the
proper method of lowering the basket he described and the method described by
Johnson are pretty much one and the same.
Madeley also testified the proper way to train personnel regarding personnel
basket transfers is for riders to keep one foot on the basket and one foot off when the
basket is approaching the deck, but again he could not point to any specific authority for

11

this assertion. Madeley admitted, though, a person should not step off the basket if the
basket is still being lowered, and he would not recommend anyone jump off the basket
while it is one foot above the deck of the crew boat. He agreed the industry best practice
is to wait until the basket lands and not to step off when the basket is still being lowered.
Defendant’s expert, Robert Watson (“Watson”), was a crane operator for a
number of years. Later, he inspected cranes and then went into safety training. At trial,
he estimated he had trained in excess of 800 crane operators, 300 to 400 riggers, and
350 qualified inspectors. He also testified he had trained approximately 1,000 people on
how to properly ride a personnel basket. Watson is also on the American Petroleum
Institute (“API”) committee that developed industry standards for crane operations.
Watson testified the proper way to train riders is to tell them to step on the
basket, place both feet on the outer ring, intertwine both arms in the netting, and stay
on the basket until it rests on the deck. At the point the basket touches the deck, riders
should then immediately get off. Watson testified that riders are always trained to keep
both feet on until the basket reaches the deck and that it is not safe to take a foot off
beforehand because this action could affect the rider’s balance. Watson testified that
Billy Pugh publishes recommended practices that are in accord with these instructions.
According to Watson, this training is the best practice in the industry and this is how he
personally trains riders.
Watson’s opinion at trial was that Johnson followed all rules and regulations and
was not negligent when performing the transfer. He stated a crane operator should hold
the basket about eight to ten feet above the deck to re-evaluate sea conditions and give
the Captain of the crew boat a chance to reposition the boat. Then, the crane operator
should lower the basket to four or five feet above the deck where he will pause to again

12

evaluate sea conditions and time the landing. Watson listened to Madeley’s testimony
and disagreed with Madeley’s opinion that the basket should be placed on the deck of
the waiting boat when the boat is at the crest of a swell. Watson testified that, if this
method is used, the rider may attempt to get off the basket at the crest of the swell and
the crew boat may drop out from underneath him when the boat falls on the swell.
Instead, Watson opined that the crane operator should lower the basket to the deck
while the vessel is in the trough of the swell and then immediately slack off the line.
Watson admitted at trial there is no specific API standard on this point and, instead, the
standards state only that the basket should be lowered gently to the deck. Nevertheless,
Watson testified based on his many years of experience that Johnson used the correct
method for lowering the basket to the deck and that Johnson’s actions were reasonable
under the circumstances and did not constitute negligence.
Upon consideration of the evidence, the Court finds Watson’s expert opinion
more persuasive than that of Madeley. Unlike Madeley, Watson’s primary area of
expertise is crane operations and safe practices and procedures of crane operations.
Watson has trained hundreds of crane operators and riders on how to perform
personnel basket transfers. Notably, Watson provided specific, compelling testimony on
the proper way to conduct personnel basket transfers and a well-supported opinion that
Johnson was not negligent when transferring Richardson from the INTERVENTION to
the M/V CHASE. The Court is thus persuaded by Watson’s testimony that the proper
method to ride a personnel basket is to keep two feet on the basket at all times until the
basket securely lands on deck, and the proper method for a crane operator to set a
personnel basket down when a waiting vessel is riding a swell is to lower the basket to
the deck while the vessel is in the trough of the swell, at which point the operator should

13

immediately slack off the line. The Court is persuaded by Watson’s analysis of Johnson’s
actions during the personnel basket transfer and adopts his opinion that Johnson
complied with industry standards and was not negligent.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Richardson filed suit against SEACOR asserting ordinary negligence claims
pursuant to the general maritime law.11 The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over
this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1333, which confers on the federal district courts
original jurisdiction over admiralty and maritime claims. Venue and personal
jurisdiction are not disputed and are therefore established.
To state a cause of action for negligence under general maritime law, a “plaintiff
must demonstrate that there was a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, breach of
that duty, injury sustained by plaintiff, and a causal connection between defendant’s
conduct and the plaintiff’s injury.”12 “[A] party’s negligence is actionable only if it is a
‘legal cause’ of the plaintiff’s injuries,” which “is something more than ‘but for’
causation, and the negligence must be a ‘substantial factor’ in the injury.”13 Additionally,
the comparative negligence doctrine of general maritime law “bars an injured party
from recovering for damages sustained as a result of his own fault.”14 If more than one
party is responsible, liability is apportioned on the basis of fault.15
Richardson bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that
SEACOR was negligent. Under general maritime law, a defendant owes a duty of

R. Doc. 1.
In re Cooper/T. Smith, 929 F.2d 1073, 1077 (5th Cir. 1991).
13 Donaghey v. Ocean Drilling & Exploration Co., 974 F.2d 646, 649 (5th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation
marks and citations omitted).
14 Boudreaux v. United States, 280 F.3d 461, 466 (5th Cir. 2002).
15 See id.
11

12

14

ordinary care under the circumstances, including the duty to provide a safe means of
ingress to and egress from the vessel.16 The Court finds SEACOR owed a duty to provide
Richardson a reasonably safe means of egress from the liftboat. The Court finds
Richardson has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that SEACOR
breached this duty, let alone that SEACOR’s alleged negligence was the legal cause of
Richardson’s injuries.
Based on the credible testimony of SEACOR’s fact witnesses who stated they saw
Richardson prematurely take one foot off the basket in an attempt to step off the basket
before it landed on the deck, and Robert Watson’s expert opinion that Johnson followed
industry standards and was not negligent in responding to Richardson’s actions, the
Court finds the Plaintiff has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence the elements
required to establish negligence under general maritime law. The Court finds SEACOR
did not breach its duty to provide Richardson a reasonably safe means of egress from
the liftboat to the crew boat. The Court finds the sole cause of the incident was
Richardson’s unsafe decision to take one foot off the basket and attempt to step onto the
deck of the crew boat before the basket safely landed on the deck of the M/V CHASE.
This action was contrary to his training and the industry’s best practice, which is to keep
two feet on the basket until the basket reaches the deck.
See Lowry v. Overseas Bulk Tank Corp., 62 F.3d 397 (5th Cir. 1995) (unpublished) (“Included with this
duty [toward those lawfully aboard the vessel who are not crewmembers] is the duty to provide a safe
means of ingress to the vessel.”); Hebert v. Specialized Envtl. Res. LLC, No. 12-0071, 2013 WL 1215443, at
*5 (E.D. La. Mar. 25, 2013) (Feldman, J.) (“General maritime law imposes a duty on vessel owners to
provide a reasonably safe means of ingress and egress to its passengers.”); see also Ross v. John E.
Graham & Sons, 189 F.3d 466 (5th Cir. 1999) (unpublished) (“A vessel owner must provide a passenger
with a reasonably safe means of boarding or disembarking, including the provision of proper gangways,
landing places, and personnel assistance.”); Massey v. Williams-McWilliams, Inc., 414 F.2d 675, 677 (5th
Cir. 1969) (stating “the Judge seemed to ignore the basic nature of the case—the duty of Shipowner to
afford a safe ingress and egress to crew members coming aboard or leaving the derrick barge”); Florida
Fuels, Inc. v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., 6 F.3d 330, 336 (5th Cir. 1993) (“In such a case, the wharfowner
does not undertake to provide a gangplank because everyone assumes the vessel will provide its crew with
adequate means of egress and ingress.”).

16

15

CONCLUSION
Based on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Court finds that
Plaintiff Anthony Richardson, Jr. has failed to meet his burden of proving that SEACOR
breached its duty to provide him a safe means of egress from the INTERVENTION.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the Defendant SEACOR Liftboats LLC is entitled to
judgment in its favor. The Court will enter a judgment to that effect by separate order.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 16th day of July, 2015.

___________________________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16