Allemand testified that a handrail on the crane boom of the SISCO I was broken and bent at various times in 2003 and early 2004, and that on at least two occasions during that time period a crane cable jumped and became entangled in the broken rail, rendering it extremely difficult for Allemand to free the heavy cable and resume crane operations. With respect to the SISCO I's history of broken handrails and related crane problems, the Court credits the testimony of Dale Allemand, a crane operator who worked aboard the SISCO I periodically, including during the first half of 2003 as well as in January 2004. However, plaintiffs expert testified that simply bending a broken handrail out of the way (even assuming it was physically possible to do so) may not correct the problem because a broken rail is like a spring, such that it would likely not remain in the position where it was bent back. In light of these severe financial consequences, Elliott would not take the SISCO I out of service in the middle of a job if a handrail broke, but would instead simply bend the broken rail out of the way by hand until such time as the job was completed and proper repairs could be performed. Because of expensive demurrage costs if the SISCO I is taken out of service during the course of loading or unloading a ship, Sisco endeavors to schedule maintenance and repair on the vessel only during times when it is not otherwise operating. A properly functioning crane is essential to SISCO I's mission of loading and unloading cargo, and a crane cable being tangled in a broken handrail would render the vessel unfit to perform that fundamental mission. Elliott acknowledged that a broken handrail would present an unsafe condition, that the crane could not function if one of its cables became wrapped around a broken handrail on the boom, and that it would not be safe to operate the crane if one of its cables became wrapped around a broken handrail. That said, Sisco/Pinnacle employees (who were not certified welders) would sometimes perform welding work on the SISCO I, and there was a welding machine onboard and accessible to all crew members that could be used to repair welds on an as-needed basis, although Elliott denied that SISCO I crew members would ever make spot welds on the boom. Whenever a handrail broke loose on the SISCO I, Sisco supervisor Henry Aaron Elliott's practice was to contact a company called Corley Construction, which would dispatch certified welders to repair the rail.
That flexing motion may cause the handrail to break loose at the joint where it is welded to a vertical bar. The handrails, which at all relevant times were 3/8" solid round rods, warp, bend and ultimately break from time to time because the boom flexes during ordinary crane operations. The SISCO I has a 120-foot long crane boom equipped with a catwalk and handrails to allow crew members a safe means of traversing and inspecting the boom. The SISCO I was owned and operated by Sisco however, Pinnacle performed payroll management services for Sisco, and nominally employed Baucom and the other SISCO I crew members. On December 8, 2003, Baucom was employed as a crane operator aboard the SISCO I, a crane barge that was moored at the Mobile River Terminal and engaged in operations of loading and unloading cargo from other vessels. Sisco and Pinnacle deny liability, and further assert that any award to Baucom must be reduced proportionately by his share of fault, pursuant to comparative negligence principles. Plaintiff brings claims against defendants for negligence under the Jones Act, for unseaworthiness of the vessel, and for exemplary damages and attorney's fees arising from Sisco/Pinnacle's failure to pay maintenance and cure. d/b/a Pinnacle Marine Services ("Pinnacle") as a result of injuries he sustained on Decemwhile working for Pinnacle on a crane barge owned and operated by Sisco.
Plaintiff Robert Baucom brought this action against defendants Sisco Stevedoring, LLC ("Sisco") and PM Marine Employee Management, Inc. That briefing having been completed, the undersigned now enters findings of fact and conclusions of law, pursuant to Rule 52(a), Fed.R.Civ.P. At the conclusion of trial, the Court ordered post-trial briefing on certain enumerated factual and legal questions. Both sides called witnesses and introduced exhibits (including deposition transcripts) into evidence.
SISCO V. BROCE MANUFACTURING 2001 TRIAL
This matter came before the Court for non-jury trial on February 12 and 13, 2008. SISCO STEVEDORING, LLC, et al., Defendants.