5th Cir. Pattern Jury Instr. (Civil) 4.4

Under the Jones Act, Plaintiff [name] must prove

that [his/her] employer was negligent. Negligence is doing an act that a reasonably prudent person would not

do, or failing to do something that a reasonably prudent

person would do, under the same or similar

circumstances. The occurrence of an accident, standing

alone, does not mean that anyone was negligent or that

anyone’s negligence caused the accident.

In a Jones Act claim, the word “negligence” is liberally interpreted. It includes any breach of duty that an

employer owes to its employees who are seamen, including the duty of providing for the safety of the crew.

Under the Jones Act, if the employer’s negligent act

was the cause, in whole or in part, of injury to a seaman employee, then you must find that the employer is

liable under the Jones Act.

1

In other words, under the

Jones Act, Defendant [name] bears the responsibility

for any negligence that played a part, however slight,

in causing Plaintiff [name]’s injury.

2

Negligence may be

a cause of injury even though it operates in combination with another’s act or with some other cause, if the

negligence played any part in causing such injury.

1In Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Gottshall , 512 U.S. 532 (1994), the

Supreme Court held that a railroad’s duty under FELA to provide its employees with a safe place to work includes a duty to avoid subjecting its

workers to negligently inflicted emotional injury . The Court ruled that

“injury” as used in that statute may encompass both physical and emotional injury . The Court also stated that a worker within the zone of

danger of physical impact will be able to recover for emotional injury

caused by fear of physical injury to himself, but a worker outside the zone

of danger will not. Because FELA standards have been carried into the

Jones Act, this zone-of-danger standard applies to Jones Act claims as

well as FELA claims. In Jones Act cases in which a plaintiff sues for

purely emotional injury , without physical impact but within the zone of

danger, the jury should be instructed accordingly . Whether a reasonable

person under the circumstances would have had a fear of physical impact

is a question for the jury .

2CSX Transp., Inc. v. McBride , 564 U.S. 685, 704 (2011) (internal

citation omitted).

4.4ADMIRALTY

43

Negligence under the Jones Act may consist of a

failure to comply with a duty required by law. Employers of seamen have a duty to provide their employees

with a reasonably safe place to work. If you find that

Plaintiff [name] was injured because Defendant [name]

failed to furnish [him/her] with a reasonably safe place

to work, and that Plaintiff [name]’s working conditions

could have been made safe through the exercise of reasonable care, then you must find that Defendant [name]

was negligent.

The fact that Defendant [name] conducted its

operations in a manner similar to that of other companies is not conclusive as to whether Defendant [name]

was negligent or not.

You must determine if the operation in question

was reasonably safe under the circumstances. The fact

that a certain practice had been continued for a long

period of time does not necessarily mean that it is reasonably safe under all circumstances. A long-accepted

practice may be an unsafe practice. A practice is not

necessarily unsafe or unreasonable, however, merely

because it injures someone.

A seaman’s employer is legally responsible for the

negligence of one of [his/her/its] employees while that

employee is acting within the course and scope of [his/

her] [job] [employment].

If you find from a preponderance of the evidence

that Defendant [name] assigned Plaintiff [name] to

perform a task that the Plaintiff [name] was not

adequately trained to perform, you must find that

Defendant [name] was negligent.