Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Troupe v. Chicago, Duluth & Georgian Bay Transit Co.

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1956 · Civil Procedure

Civil Procedurejury trialpreservation of errordiversity jurisdictionpendent jurisdictionadmiraltyJones Actunseaworthiness

Facts

Plaintiff, a stewardess on defendant's Great Lakes passenger steamer, slipped on a three-step steel stairway outside one of her assigned cabins while the vessel was undergoing final fitting-out for the season. The steps had been painted several days earlier with grey deck paint, had diamond safety tread pressed into the steel, and plaintiff testified that rain had made them damp and that repeated painting had filled the tread so the steps were smooth and exceedingly slippery. She had used the same steps over six prior seasons and several times earlier that day without incident. Her complaint alleged negligence under the Jones Act and maintenance and cure, and also alleged that defendant maintained the vessel with a freshly painted, shiny, smooth, excessively slippery step.

Issue

Whether the district court had jurisdiction to submit the unseaworthiness claim to a jury on the law side, whether the trial court erred in effectively directing a verdict for defendant on unseaworthiness, and whether the negligence charge incorrectly told the jury that defendant satisfied due care if its steps and paint were commonly used and accepted in the industry.

Rule

Where diversity of citizenship and the jurisdictional amount are present, a federal district court has jurisdiction at law over an unseaworthiness claim and the plaintiff is entitled to jury submission of both negligence and unseaworthiness claims. Evidence that steps were painted and maintained so as to be excessively slippery is sufficient to require jury consideration of unseaworthiness. Preservation of objection to a ruling effectively granting a directed verdict is governed by Rule 46, which is satisfied when the party timely makes known the action desired and the grounds for it; Rule 51 governs jury-instruction objections. In a negligence action, common industry practice is admissible and relevant but does not conclusively establish due care.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Lena Ortiz, a deckhand from Ohio, sued North Shore Marine Lines, a corporation incorporated in Wisconsin, in federal district court in Cleveland after she was injured aboard one of its vessels on Lake Erie. Her complaint joined a Jones Act negligence claim with a general maritime unseaworthiness claim, and the record showed damages well above the statutory amount in controversy.

North Shore Marine Lines argues that the unseaworthiness claim cannot be tried to a jury on the law side because unseaworthiness is a maritime claim. How should the court rule under the majority's reasoning?

Explanation. The majority held that where diversity of citizenship and the jurisdictional amount are present, the district court has jurisdiction at law over an unseaworthiness claim. In that posture, the plaintiff is entitled to jury submission of both the Jones Act negligence claim and the unseaworthiness claim. The significance of the jurisdictional issue is the mode of trial, not whether admiralty jurisdiction exists at all.