911 F.3d 280
5th Cir.2018Background
- Randle, a seaman employed by Crosby aboard the M/V DELTA FORCE, suffered an acute medical event (stroke) while the vessel was docked in Amelia, Louisiana.
- Crew discovered Randle incapacitated; the captain called 911 and Acadian Ambulance transported him per Louisiana Emergency Response Network (LERN) instructions to Teche Regional Medical Center (TRMC).
- TRMC physicians misdiagnosed Randle (treated as brain mass after non-contrast CT and telemedicine consult) and did not administer tPA within the three-hour window; Randle later was correctly diagnosed but too late for the medication.
- Randle became permanently disabled and sued Crosby under the Jones Act for negligent failure to provide prompt/adequate medical care, unseaworthiness, and maintenance-and-cure (maintenance-and-cure was settled; appeal focuses on negligence/unseaworthiness claims).
- The district court granted summary judgment for Crosby on negligence and unseaworthiness; the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Crosby’s act of calling 911 was reasonable under the circumstances and did not breach its nondelegable duty, and (2) Crosby was not vicariously liable for TRMC’s alleged malpractice because it did not select, hire, or manifest authority to TRMC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Crosby breached its nondelegable duty to provide prompt and adequate medical care by merely calling 911 | Randle: calling 911 was insufficient; Crosby should have ensured care (e.g., taken him to a stroke center) | Crosby: calling 911 was a reasonable effort to secure emergency care given circumstances | Held: No breach—calling 911 was reasonable and procured prompt/adequate care under the circumstances |
| Whether Crosby is vicariously liable for TRMC physicians’ alleged malpractice | Randle: Crosby’s nondelegable duty makes it liable for downstream medical malpractice even if it did not select the hospital | Crosby: Vicarious liability requires an agency relationship created by an affirmative act (selection/hiring); Crosby did not select TRMC | Held: No vicarious liability—no agency relation because Crosby did not select or manifest authority to TRMC |
| Whether analogous precedents (De Centeno, Sambula, Hopson) require a different result | Randle: those cases show shipowners can be liable for chosen medical providers; here duty should impose liability | Crosby: those cases apply where shipowner affirmatively selected or retained providers; they do not support liability absent selection | Held: Precedents apply where owner selects provider; they do not extend liability to unrelated third-party providers chosen via 911/LERN chain |
| Whether a genuine factual dispute exists to defeat summary judgment | Randle: factual questions about adequacy of care and possible alternatives (e.g., stroke center) | Crosby: testimony and circumstances show no evidence Crosby could reasonably do more; TRMC capable of treating stroke | Held: No genuine dispute of material fact; summary judgment for Crosby affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- De Zon v. American President Lines, 318 U.S. 660 (shipowner’s nondelegable duty to provide medical care to seamen)
- Hopson v. Texaco, Inc., 383 U.S. 262 (FELA/Jones Act employer liable for negligent agents performing operational duties under contract)
- De Centeno v. Gulf Fleet Crews, Inc., 798 F.2d 138 (5th Cir.) (vicarious liability where shipowner selected physician)
- Cent. Gulf S.S. Corp. v. Sambula, 405 F.2d 291 (5th Cir.) (shipowner negligent for selecting inadequate on-shore practitioner)
- Olsen v. American S.S. Co., 176 F.3d 891 (6th Cir.) (shipowner liable when it fails to get crewmember to doctor when reasonably able)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment/genuine dispute standard)