A shipboard task became a fight over responsibility
The crew had emptied the lifeboats ahead of the shipyard work, placing drinking water, first-aid equipment and other supplies in milk crates. Some crates still needed to be moved when Harvey’s watch ended shortly after midnight on November 8, 2020.
Harvey described a dark, rainy deck with puddles. He testified that the captain ordered him outside to move the remaining gear. The captain described the exchange differently: he said he had asked for help getting the crates out of the weather. That disagreement became a central issue at trial.
The defendant, Sunrise Operations, owned the vessel and was part of the Pasha Group’s maritime business. Pasha’s acquisition announcement identifies Sunrise among the businesses it acquired with Horizon’s Hawaii operations.
Sunrise disputed whether Harvey had suffered the injury as claimed and argued that, if he had, his own actions were solely responsible. Brian presented Harvey’s case to a federal jury. After six days of testimony, the jury found that Sunrise’s negligence contributed to Harvey’s injury, rejecting the company’s position that it bore no responsibility.
Brian challenged rulings that narrowed Harvey’s case
The trial was difficult beyond the dispute over what happened on deck. The judge excluded a vessel-condition survey and admitted weather reports offered by the defense. Brian challenged those evidentiary rulings in the request for a new trial, along with the jury’s finding that the captain had requested assistance rather than given an order.
The district court denied that request. The appeal focused on the order-versus-request issue, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Those decisions left the reduced judgment in place. The jury’s finding that Sunrise was negligent still supported a judgment under the Jones Act.
The verdict, the judgment and pure comparative negligence
On March 9, 2023, the jury assessed Harvey’s total damages at $7,620,000 and assigned 95% of the responsibility to Harvey and 5% to Sunrise. Applying that allocation, the court entered a $381,000 judgment against Sunrise Operations: $7,620,000 × 5%.
The Jones Act generally follows pure comparative negligence. A seaman’s own negligence reduces damages proportionately rather than automatically barring recovery, even when the seaman bears most of the responsibility. “Contributory negligence” describes the worker’s own contribution to the injury; under the Jones Act, it ordinarily produces a reduction rather than a complete bar. The worker must still prove employer negligence that contributed to the injury.
Payment on behalf of Sunrise Operations totaled $417,382.50: the $381,000 judgment plus $36,382.50 in agreed postjudgment interest. The verdict, reduced judgment and payment are successive stages of the same case.
Talk with Brian about a vessel injury
Brian represents injured seamen in Jones Act claims and other maritime injury cases, including disputes about a captain’s instructions, working conditions and responsibility for a shipboard injury. Call 877-724-7800 or Tell Us What Happened to discuss your circumstances.
Case questions
Every case is different. Prior results depend on the facts of the individual case and do not guarantee a similar outcome.