Deckhand — $2,350,000.00

Case Snapshot

• Client: Deckhand
• Worksite: D/B 24, a derrick and dredge barge operating in San Francisco Bay
• Incident: Slip and fall while accessing a spud winch on a dark, muddy deck, followed by a second fall after losing consciousness
• Primary injuries: Grade II open bicondylar tibial plateau fracture, scalp and forehead laceration, post-concussion symptoms, chronic knee pain, balance problems, cognitive difficulties, depression, and anxiety
• Surgery: Open reduction internal fixation with irrigation and debridement of the open fracture
• Legal issues: Jones Act negligence, vessel unseaworthiness, unsafe equipment access, delayed medical transport, disputed traumatic brain injury, and comparative fault
• Case result: $2,350,000.00

Case Summary

A young deckhand suffered a devastating open knee fracture and a disputed brain injury after slipping while accessing a spud winch aboard a derrick barge in San Francisco Bay.

The accident happened during an assigned task on a dark September evening. The access route required the deckhand to move from serrated, slip-resistant grating toward a smooth metal surface near the winch. Mud and limited lighting made the transition more hazardous.

When his foot slipped, he fell several feet onto the steel deck. The impact shattered the upper portion of his left leg and drove the fractured bone through the skin. He attempted to push himself up, but the pain overwhelmed him. He lost consciousness and fell again, striking his head and face against the deck.

His evacuation from the barge involved multiple transfers before he reached an ambulance and was taken to Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital.

The physical consequences continued long after the emergency surgery. He experienced chronic knee pain, difficulty walking, balance problems, headaches, dizziness, cognitive complaints, depression, anxiety, and a profound loss of independence.

The company disputed the safety allegations and challenged the extent and cause of his injuries. Our investigation focused on the vessel’s access configuration, the condition of the work area, the absence of task-specific safety documentation, the medical evidence, and changes made to the winch-access area after the accident.

How Did the Derrick Barge Accident Happen?

The deckhand was injured while performing assigned work aboard D/B 24, a 150-foot steel derrick barge used for dredging and heavy-lifting operations in San Francisco Bay.

Derrick and dredge barges are floating industrial worksites. Their crews work around wire ropes, winches, cranes, spuds, heavy machinery, and steel deck surfaces. The work may be performed at night and in wet, muddy, or unstable conditions.

At approximately 8:00 p.m. on September 15, 2020, the deckhand’s assignment required him to access the vessel’s spud winch.

Spuds are large steel poles that can be driven into the seabed to stabilize and position a barge during operations. The spud winch controls the movement of those poles.

To reach the winch, the deckhand used an access structure that crossed over two wire ropes. Part of the route contained serrated Grip Strut material intended to provide traction. From that surface, however, the worker had to move toward a smooth metal flange near a rounded guard covering part of the winch assembly.

The area was dark and contaminated with mud.

As the deckhand moved through the access point, his right foot slipped backward. He fell approximately three to five feet onto the steel deck below.

The fall caused a Grade II open bicondylar tibial plateau fracture. Both sides of the upper shin bone near the knee were fractured, and the injury broke through the skin.

When he tried to stand, the pain caused him to black out. He fell a second time and struck his head and face on the steel deck, sustaining a scalp and forehead laceration.

What Was Unsafe About the Spud Winch Access?

The maritime safety claim focused on the abrupt transition from slip-resistant grating to smooth metal in an access area that was dark and muddy.

A safe access route should account for the conditions in which crew members are expected to use it. An arrangement that may appear acceptable in daylight and dry weather can become significantly more dangerous when the surface is muddy, visibility is limited, and a worker is navigating around operating equipment.

The deckhand did not choose the location of the winch or design the route used to reach it. He was attempting to access equipment required for his assigned work.

Our investigation examined whether the vessel owner and employer had:

• Properly evaluated the winch-access route
• Provided a reasonably secure means of reaching the equipment
• Addressed the transition between different deck surfaces
• Maintained adequate lighting
• Inspected and corrected muddy or slippery conditions
• Trained workers on the safest method of accessing the winch
• Completed a task-specific Job Safety Analysis

The evidence raised significant questions about whether the access route had been adequately evaluated before the accident.

How Was the Injured Deckhand Transported for Emergency Treatment?

The deckhand was not moved directly from the barge into an ambulance. His evacuation involved several transfers before he reached emergency medical transportation.

After suffering an open fracture and striking his head, he had to be moved from the vessel to the dock, from the dock to another vehicle, and eventually to an ambulance.

He was taken to Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital, where doctors confirmed the severity of the leg injury.

Surgeons performed open reduction internal fixation to stabilize the fracture. The procedure also included irrigation and debridement of the open wound down to the bone. Medical records documented concern for compartment syndrome at admission.

In a Jones Act case, the employer’s response after an accident may be relevant in addition to the conditions that caused the injury. A delayed or unnecessarily complicated evacuation should be investigated when a seaman suffers an open fracture, loss of consciousness, head trauma, severe bleeding, or another medical emergency.

How Did the Company Defend the Jones Act Claim?

The company disputed both liability and damages.

Its marine engineering expert argued that the winch-access configuration did not violate an applicable regulation and met accepted industry standards. The company also maintained that the rounded guard near the winch was not intended to function as a step or walking surface.

In effect, the defense argued that the deckhand should have navigated the area differently.

The company relied in part on a marine survey that predated the accident. However, that survey did not specifically evaluate the winch-access route under the dark and muddy conditions present when the fall occurred.

The defense also challenged the deckhand’s brain injury.

Its neuropsychologist concluded that he had experienced, at most, a very mild concussion, if a concussion had occurred at all. The defense raised concerns about response validity during cognitive testing and questioned whether the reported deficits reflected a neurological injury.

A defense psychiatrist attributed the deckhand’s symptoms to psychological conditions rather than an injury-related cognitive disorder.

The company’s orthopedic examiner placed the deckhand at maximum medical improvement approximately one year after the accident and recommended no additional treatment. Although the physician acknowledged a sensitive scar and possible neuroma, the defense disputed the need for further surgery or significant future care.

The company also argued that the worker bore some responsibility for the way he accessed the winch.

What Evidence Supported the Deckhand’s Claim?

The evidence included the vessel’s access configuration, the difference between the walking surfaces, the lighting and deck conditions, missing safety documentation, medical findings, expert evaluations, and later changes to the winch-access area.

Our legal team investigated what the company had done to identify and control the hazard before the accident.

We found no documented Job Safety Analysis focused specifically on accessing the spud winch. We also found no formal training record addressing the transition from the serrated access structure toward the smooth metal surface.

The available records did not establish that the condition of the access area had been inspected and documented on the night of the accident.

A maritime safety expert evaluated the incident across several areas:

• Equipment and access design
• Work procedures
• Crew training
• Safety management
• Hazard identification and Job Safety Analysis practices

The investigation also revealed that dedicated steps were added to the spud winch access area after the accident.

The legal significance and admissibility of post-accident modifications depend on the issues being disputed and the applicable rules of evidence. However, later changes may be relevant to questions such as whether a different access design was feasible and how the original configuration should be evaluated.

How Did We Address the Disputed Brain Injury?

The brain injury claim was supported through neurological, psychological, functional, and witness evidence rather than relying on a single scan or test result.

After losing consciousness and striking his head, the deckhand reported symptoms that included:

• Headaches
• Dizziness and vertigo
• Double vision and other visual disturbances
• Balance problems
• Memory difficulties
• Reduced concentration
• Slowed thinking
• Sleep disturbance
• Depression and anxiety
• Trauma-related symptoms
• Social withdrawal

Mild traumatic brain injuries do not always produce abnormalities on routine CT or MRI imaging. Evaluation may depend on the mechanism of injury, loss of consciousness, the progression of symptoms, neurological findings, cognitive testing, treatment records, and observations from family members.

The defense attempted to characterize the symptoms as psychological adjustment, response bias, or somatic distress.

Our evidence presented the symptoms in the context of the entire accident: the severe orthopedic trauma, the loss of consciousness, the head impact, chronic pain, reduced mobility, inability to return to normal work, and the resulting emotional and functional decline.

The goal was not to rely on one diagnosis in isolation. It was to present a complete picture of how the accident changed the deckhand’s ability to work, think, move, and participate in family life.

What Maritime Laws Applied to the Injury?

The principal claims involved Jones Act negligence and vessel unseaworthiness.

Jones Act Negligence

The Jones Act allows a qualifying seaman to pursue a negligence claim against an employer whose failure to provide reasonably safe working conditions contributed to an injury.

Potential negligence issues in this case included:

• The transition from a slip-resistant surface to smooth metal
• Dark and muddy working conditions
• Inadequate inspection or correction of the access area
• The absence of a documented task-specific hazard analysis
• Inadequate training on how to reach the winch safely
• The complicated vessel-to-shore medical evacuation

A seaman does not have to prove that the employer’s negligence was the only cause of the injury. The question is whether the employer’s negligence played a part in causing the harm.

Vessel Unseaworthiness

A vessel owner has a duty to provide a vessel, its equipment, its crew, and its working areas in a condition reasonably fit for their intended purposes.

The unseaworthiness claim alleged that the route used to access the spud winch was not reasonably suitable under the conditions in which the crew was required to use it.

Unseaworthiness does not concern only whether a vessel can float or navigate. It can also involve unsafe equipment, defective working surfaces, improper work methods, inadequate access routes, or other conditions affecting the vessel’s fitness for crew operations.

How Did Comparative Fault Affect the Claim?

The company argued that the deckhand was partially responsible because of the way he moved through the winch-access area.

Comparative fault can reduce a seaman’s recovery when the evidence establishes that the worker’s own negligence contributed to the accident. It does not automatically eliminate the claim.

Our position was that the deckhand was performing assigned work and using the access available to him. The employer controlled the vessel, selected the equipment, maintained the route, managed the lighting, and was responsible for correcting unsafe deck conditions.

There was no allegation that the deckhand was engaged in horseplay, intoxicated, or intentionally disregarding his work duties.

The central question was not simply whether he could have moved differently. It was whether the vessel provided a reasonably safe and practical way to reach equipment he was required to operate.

Why Did the San Francisco Bay Location Matter?

Although the accident occurred in San Francisco Bay, the litigation proceeded in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Maritime cases may involve more than one jurisdiction. The location of the accident, the vessel’s operations, the employer’s business activities, contractual relationships, and federal venue rules can all affect where a claim is filed.

This case required familiarity with both San Francisco Bay barge operations and federal maritime litigation in Louisiana.

It also required coordination among professionals in several fields, including orthopedic medicine, neurology, neuropsychology, psychiatry, maritime safety, vocational rehabilitation, life-care planning, and economics.

What Can Other Injured Maritime Workers Learn From This Case?

This case illustrates why early investigation is critical after a serious vessel accident.

Preserve the Condition of the Vessel

Vessels are repaired, equipment is moved, and access routes may be modified. Photographs, inspection records, maintenance documents, work orders, and witness statements should be preserved as early as possible.

Report Every Injury and Symptom

A worker who suffers both orthopedic and head trauma should report symptoms such as dizziness, headaches, visual disturbances, memory problems, sleep changes, and emotional difficulties. Brain injury symptoms may become more apparent over time.

Investigate Medical-Evacuation Delays

The time and method used to move an injured seaman from the vessel to appropriate medical care may become relevant when the injury involves severe bleeding, loss of consciousness, an open fracture, or other emergency conditions.

Evaluate Future Earning Capacity

A young deckhand who cannot return to heavy maritime employment may lose decades of future earnings. A complete damages evaluation may require vocational testing, wage records, medical restrictions, transferable-skills analysis, and economic projections.

Do Not Wait to Seek Legal Advice

Jones Act claims are generally subject to a three-year limitations period, but waiting can damage a case long before the deadline expires. Evidence disappears, witnesses become difficult to locate, and vessel conditions change.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a Deckhand Sue After Falling on a Derrick Barge?

A qualifying seaman may bring a Jones Act negligence claim when an employer’s failure to provide reasonably safe working conditions contributes to the fall. The worker may also have an unseaworthiness claim involving the vessel’s equipment, access route, or working surfaces.

Can a Smooth Metal Surface Create an Unsafe Access Condition?

It can. A transition from serrated or slip-resistant grating to smooth metal may create a foreseeable hazard when the area is dark, wet, muddy, greasy, or affected by vessel movement.

Can a Concussion Be Diagnosed Without Abnormal Imaging?

Yes. Mild traumatic brain injuries do not always appear on routine structural imaging. Diagnosis may rely on the accident mechanism, loss of consciousness, symptoms, neurological findings, cognitive testing, treatment history, and observations from others.

Does Delayed Medical Transport Matter in a Jones Act Case?

It may. An employer’s response to a serious shipboard injury can become part of the negligence analysis, particularly when the worker experiences an open fracture, head impact, loss of consciousness, or another medical emergency.

How Long Does a Deckhand Have to File a Jones Act Claim?

Jones Act claims are generally subject to a three-year statute of limitations. The exact deadline and the deadlines for related maritime claims can depend on the facts, so an injured worker should seek advice promptly.

About The Young Firm

The Young Firm represents injured seamen, deckhands, dredge workers, barge workers, tankermen, and offshore employees in Jones Act negligence, unseaworthiness, maintenance and cure, and other maritime injury claims.

Led by maritime attorney Tim Young, the firm handles cases involving unsafe vessel access, falls, orthopedic trauma, traumatic brain injuries, disputed medical causation, vocational disability, and lost future earning capacity.

A serious maritime accident can affect much more than a worker’s medical condition. It can take away a career, income, physical independence, family participation, and long-term security.

Our responsibility is to investigate the accident carefully, present the full effect of the injuries, and pursue the compensation available under maritime law.

Speak With a Jones Act Deckhand Injury Lawyer

An injured deckhand may have claims for Jones Act negligence, vessel unseaworthiness, maintenance and cure, lost wages, reduced earning capacity, medical expenses, pain, disability, and other losses.

Prompt investigation is especially important when the case involves an unsafe access route, changing vessel conditions, a delayed evacuation, or a disputed brain injury.

If you or a family member was injured while working aboard a barge, dredge, vessel, or offshore platform in San Francisco Bay, the Gulf of Mexico, or another United States waterway, contact The Young Firm.

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

The consultation is free. We only get paid when you do.