Tankerman — $395,000.00

Case Snapshot

Client

Tankerman / Tankerman-Steersman in tug-and-barge operations

Location

Louisiana inland waterways

Incident Date

December 6, 2019, approximately 4:00–5:00 a.m.

Incident Type

Slip and fall while descending barge access stairs during a required cargo-temperature check

Injury

Right knee meniscus tear

Treatment

Arthroscopic knee surgery, including chondroplasty, medial and lateral meniscectomy, partial synovectomy and debridement, plica excision, and lysis of adhesions

Key Legal Issues

Jones Act negligence, vessel unseaworthiness, defective barge stairs, inconsistent riser heights, missing landing, inspection failures, maintenance and cure, and diminished earning capacity

Case Result

$395,000.00

A Required Cargo Check Became a Career-Changing Knee Injury

There is a particular kind of quiet that settles over Louisiana’s inland waterways before sunrise. A tug engine idles in the distance. Current moves against a barge hull. One crew member continues working while most of the world is asleep.

Our client knew that setting well.

He worked as a tankerman and steersman aboard a tug-and-barge unit carrying oil products through Louisiana’s commercial waterway system. His responsibilities included monitoring cargo temperatures during the midnight back watch. The job required him to move between barges, climb access structures, and carry a temperature gauge while completing checks throughout the night.

At approximately 4:00 a.m. on December 6, 2019, he finished checking the temperatures aboard two heater barges and began returning toward the push boat.

As he descended a set of access stairs from a raised walkway, his right foot slipped from a dew-covered tread. He heard a snap inside his knee and immediately felt severe pain.

At first, the accident could have been dismissed as a routine fall on a wet vessel surface. Once the stairway was measured, however, the case changed.

The first rise from the barge deck to the bottom stair tread measured approximately 16 inches. The remaining stair risers measured about 7.25 inches. The bottom rise was therefore more than twice the height of the others.

There was also no landing at the base of the stairway.

What appeared to be a simple wet-step accident became an investigation into defective vessel access, unsafe stair geometry, and the employer’s failure to identify or correct a hazard crew members encountered during every watch.

What Was Wrong With the Barge Stairs?

The tug-and-barge unit included two heater barges, each approximately 300 feet long and 54 feet wide. The cargo aboard the barges required regular temperature monitoring, including during nighttime watches.

A raised walkway connected to the main barge deck through the stairway our client routinely used while performing his duties.

The upper stair risers were relatively consistent at approximately 7.25 inches. The final transition between the deck and the bottom stair tread was dramatically different. At approximately 16 inches, it required a crew member to negotiate a much larger step than the stair pattern created by the preceding risers.

That inconsistency was especially important because workers naturally develop an expected stepping rhythm while descending a staircase. A sudden change at the bottom can disrupt that movement and increase the risk of a misstep.

The conditions of the work made the problem more serious. Crew members used the stairway:

• Before sunrise and in limited light;
• During long and physically demanding watches;
• In predictable moisture and dew;
• While carrying gauges, tools, or other equipment; and
• Without a landing that provided a stable transition to the deck.

A lower step that would have reduced the 16-inch transition appeared to have been added after the accident. The legal significance and admissibility of any later modification depend on the applicable evidentiary rules. Regardless, documenting the original configuration was essential to understanding the condition that existed when our client was hurt.

Why This Was More Than a Wet-Deck Accident

The employer attempted to characterize the incident as an ordinary slip caused by morning dew.

Moisture is common aboard vessels, and experienced maritime workers understand the importance of watching their footing. But the presence of dew did not answer the central question: Was the stairway reasonably safe for the work crew members were required to perform?

Predictable moisture does not eliminate an employer’s duty to inspect vessel access equipment, identify hazards, and provide seamen with a reasonably safe place to work.

The employer also pointed to its written safety policies, training materials, and onboarding procedures. Those documents may demonstrate that a safety program existed, but paperwork alone does not correct unsafe stair geometry.

A meaningful vessel-safety program must identify the hazards workers actually encounter. It should have addressed:

• The unusually high bottom rise;
• The lack of a landing;
• Routine nighttime use;
• The likelihood of moisture;
• Workers carrying required equipment; and
• Whether the stairway provided safe access between the raised walkway and the deck.

The vessel was tied up in a fleet and awaiting orders when the accident occurred. That fact did not end our client’s maritime duties. He was still completing an assigned cargo-monitoring task in service of the tug-and-barge unit.

A vessel does not have to be moving for a seaman to remain protected by the Jones Act.

How the Defective Stair Design Was Uncovered

When maritime attorney Tim Young and The Young Firm accepted the case, the investigation focused on preserving and measuring the vessel-access structure.

A marine safety and liability expert inspected the stairway, documented its configuration, and evaluated whether it provided reasonably safe access for crew members.

The measurements demonstrated the central defect:

• Approximately 7.25-inch upper risers;
• An approximately 16-inch bottom rise;
• No landing at the base of the stair run; and
• Regular use by workers carrying tools or cargo-monitoring equipment.

The expert also considered marine safety guidance addressing consistent stair geometry and clear access at the top and bottom of stairways. ASTM-related guidance concerning stairs used by employees who carry equipment was also examined during the investigation.

The relevance and legal weight of industry guidance depend on the vessel, the intended use of the stairway, and the specific facts of the case. Here, the guidance helped the expert evaluate whether the access structure was reasonably safe for tankermen performing required cargo checks.

The investigation also examined the employer’s inspection and safety practices. Although the company had implemented new procedures following a change in ownership, questions remained about whether those procedures had been effectively applied to existing crew members and whether the stairway had ever been meaningfully evaluated.

A safety system is only effective when it reaches the workers performing the job and identifies the hazards they face aboard the vessel.

Jones Act Negligence

The Jones Act requires a maritime employer to exercise reasonable care and provide seamen with a reasonably safe place to work.

That duty can include:

• Inspecting vessel equipment;
• Identifying unsafe access routes;
• Correcting dangerous conditions;
• Providing appropriate training;
• Accounting for predictable working conditions; and
• Maintaining stairs, ladders, walkways, and other vessel appurtenances.

A seaman does not have to prove that employer negligence was the sole cause of an injury. Liability may exist when employer negligence played even a slight part in producing the harm.

The evidence supporting the Jones Act negligence claim included:

• A bottom rise more than twice the height of the other risers;
• No landing at the bottom of the stairs;
• Required nighttime use of the access route;
• Predictable moisture on the stairway;
• The need to carry a temperature gauge;
• Alleged failures in inspection and hazard recognition; and
• The absence of corrective action before the accident.

The presence of dew did not excuse the employer from evaluating whether the stairway itself was reasonably safe.

Vessel Unseaworthiness

The case also involved a claim for vessel unseaworthiness under general maritime law.

A vessel owner has a duty to provide a vessel, its equipment, and its appurtenances in a condition reasonably fit for their intended purposes. Access stairs and walkways can fall within that obligation.

The unseaworthiness claim focused on the condition of the stairway itself. A stair run with relatively consistent upper risers followed by a 16-inch bottom transition could be found unsafe for its intended use, particularly when crew members regularly descended it in darkness or moisture while carrying equipment.

The unseaworthiness claim was separate from the Jones Act negligence claim.

The Jones Act claim addressed the employer’s conduct, including its inspection practices and failure to correct the hazard. The unseaworthiness claim addressed whether the vessel and its access equipment were reasonably fit for the work crew members were expected to perform.

The Medical Consequences of the Fall

The fall caused a right knee meniscus injury that ultimately required arthroscopic surgery.

The procedure included:

• Chondroplasty;
• Medial meniscectomy;
• Lateral meniscectomy;
• Partial synovectomy and debridement;
• Plica excision; and
• Lysis of adhesions.

Even after treatment, our client continued to experience significant symptoms. He reported chronic knee pain, wore a brace regularly, walked with an altered gait, and experienced difficulty sleeping because of the injury.

For a tankerman or steersman, a knee injury can affect nearly every part of the job.

Maritime work can require a worker to:

• Climb ladders and stairs;
• Walk across uneven vessel surfaces;
• Balance while the vessel moves;
• Lift and carry equipment;
• Handle lines;
• Respond to emergencies; and
• Remain physically capable of performing safety-sensitive duties.

A worker who cannot safely climb, balance, kneel, or move around a vessel may lose more than a single position. The injury may remove him from an entire career path.

Lost Wages and Diminished Earning Capacity

Our client had built his working life around physically demanding maritime employment.

Vocational evidence indicated that, without a full-duty medical release, his ability to return to tankerman and steersman work was materially affected. Economic analyses placed the potential wage-loss exposure well into six figures, depending on assumptions about work restrictions, future employment, and his ability to return to maritime service.

A complete Jones Act damages analysis may include:

• Past medical expenses;
• Future medical care;
• Past lost wages;
• Loss of future earning capacity;
• Pain and suffering;
• Physical disability;
• Loss of enjoyment of life; and
• Maintenance and cure.

Future earning capacity can be particularly significant for credentialed maritime workers. Years of training, experience, and vessel-specific knowledge may not transfer easily into a less physical shore-based occupation offering comparable wages.

The loss was not only financial. Our client’s identity had been built around being capable, dependable, and able to perform demanding work on the water. After the injury, the future of that career became uncertain.

Why the Louisiana Maritime Location Mattered

This accident occurred in Louisiana’s inland tug-and-barge corridor, one of the country’s most active commercial maritime regions.

Tankermen, steersmen, pilots, deckhands, and captains work throughout the Mississippi River system, industrial canals, river fleets, and waterways connecting Louisiana facilities with the Gulf Coast.

Understanding this environment was important to both liability and damages.

The case required knowledge of:

• Tug-and-barge operations;
• Heater-barge cargo monitoring;
• Tankerman and steersman responsibilities;
• Vessel-access systems;
• Louisiana maritime wage structures;
• The New Orleans–Metairie labor market; and
• The effect of physical restrictions on maritime employment.

When a maritime worker loses the ability to perform heavy vessel work, evaluating the claim requires more than applying a generic wage figure. The analysis must consider the worker’s credentials, expected career advancement, vessel experience, and realistic employment opportunities after the injury.

Key Lessons for Injured Maritime Workers

A Vessel Fall Should Be Fully Investigated

A fall on a wet stairway should not automatically be dismissed as a weather-related accident. Investigators should examine the complete access structure, including:

• Riser heights;
• Tread dimensions;
• Landings;
• Handrails;
• Lighting;
• Surface coatings;
• Drainage;
• Maintenance; and
• The work the employee was performing.

Assigned Duties Matter

Our client was performing a mandatory cargo-temperature check using the access route provided by the vessel.

The fact that a worker was performing an assigned duty, carrying required equipment, and using the vessel’s designated access route can be important when evaluating employer negligence and comparative fault.

Jones Act Protection May Apply While a Vessel Is Tied Up

A seaman may remain protected while performing assigned work aboard a vessel that is tied up, anchored, dockside, or waiting for orders.

The analysis depends on the worker’s connection to the vessel and the duties being performed, not simply whether the vessel was moving at the moment of the accident.

Early Evidence Preservation Is Critical

Vessel conditions can change quickly after an injury. Steps may be added, surfaces repainted, equipment moved, or access routes altered.

Prompt photographs, measurements, witness statements, maintenance records, and expert inspections can preserve the condition that existed when the accident occurred.

Future Career Loss Is Part of the Claim

A knee injury can affect decades of future earnings when it prevents a maritime worker from climbing, lifting, balancing, or performing safety-sensitive duties.

A full damages analysis should evaluate both immediate wage loss and the long-term impact on the worker’s maritime career.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a tankerman file a Jones Act claim after falling on barge stairs?

A tankerman may have a Jones Act claim when employer negligence contributed to the fall. Relevant evidence may include defective stair geometry, missing landings, inadequate inspections, poor lighting, slippery surfaces, and the equipment the worker was required to carry.

Does dew prevent a maritime worker from recovering compensation?

No. Moisture does not automatically excuse an unsafe vessel condition. Investigators should determine whether defective stairs, poor lighting, missing landings, inadequate coatings, or inspection failures also contributed to the accident.

What can make barge stairs unseaworthy?

Barge stairs may support an unseaworthiness claim when they are not reasonably fit for their intended purpose. Relevant conditions can include inconsistent riser heights, excessive step-down distances, missing landings, damaged treads, inadequate handrails, or unsafe placement.

Can the Jones Act apply when a tug or barge is tied up?

Yes. A seaman may remain protected while performing assigned vessel duties even when the vessel is tied up, anchored, dockside, or waiting for orders. Coverage depends on the worker’s employment relationship, vessel connection, and duties at the time of injury.

What compensation may be available for a maritime knee injury?

Potential damages may include medical expenses, lost wages, reduced future earning capacity, pain and suffering, disability, and maintenance and cure. The available recovery depends on the worker’s status, medical evidence, employment history, and the legal claims supported by the facts.

About The Young Firm

The Young Firm represents injured maritime workers, including deckhands, tankermen, steersmen, captains, and offshore crew members, throughout Louisiana and the Gulf Coast.

Maritime attorney Tim Young handles Jones Act, unseaworthiness, maintenance and cure, defective vessel equipment, and maritime personal injury claims.

If you were injured on barge stairs, a vessel ladder, a gangway, or another piece of maritime access equipment, the cause of the accident may involve more than a wet surface or a momentary loss of footing.

The consultation is free and confidential. The Young Firm does not collect an attorney’s fee unless compensation is recovered for you.

Call us today. We can help you take the next step.