Thomas E. Peak, Appellant V. Wa State Dept. Of Transportation, Respondent

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

FILED
10/14/2024
Court of Appeals
Division |
State of Washington

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION ONE

THOMAS EDWARD PEAK,
Appellant,
V.
WASHINGTON STATE
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION,

Respondent.

No. 85610-3-I

ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION,
WITHDRAWING OPINION,
AND SUBSTITUTING
OPINION

The Respondent, Washington State Department of Transportation, has

moved for reconsideration of the unpublished opinion filed on July 29, 2024. The

panel has considered the motion and has determined that the motion should be

denied, the opinion should be withdrawn, and a substitute opinion be filed.

Now, therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED that the respondent’s motion for reconsideration is denied; and

it is further

ORDERED that the unpublished opinion filed on July 29, 2024, is

withdrawn; and it is further

No. 85610-3-1/2

ORDERED that a substitute unpublished opinion be filed.

bik, J. A

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
THOMAS EDWARD PEAK,
Appellant,
v.
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION,
Respondent.
No. 85610-3-I
DIVISION ONE
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
COBURN , J. — Thomas Peak, a seaman for the ferries division of the Washington
State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), fell down a ship’s stairs1 and sustained
an injury to his back. Peak brought claims of unseaworthiness and negligence under
the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30104, alleging that an unsecured mat on the landing at the
top of the stairs caused him to slip. He also claims that he is owed reinstatement of
maintenance and cure, which WSDOT had paid until Peak’s physician determined that
he had reached maximum medical improvement. The trial court granted WSDOT’s
summary judgment motion and dismissed all of his claims. Because genuine issues of
material facts exist as to the unseaworthiness and negligence claims, we reverse the
dismissal of those claims. However, because the record establishes that Peak reached
1 The terms “stairs,” “ladder,” “stairway,” and “ladderway” are used interchangeably
throughout the record. In all instances, they describe the same “stairway” that is at issue in this
case.

85610-3-I/2
2
maximum medical improvement, we affirm the dismissal of his claim for maintenance
and cure.
FACTS
Peak was an oiler working the night shift on the Washington State ferry M/V
TILLIKUM while it was docked on October 1, 2019. He was performing fueling tasks
along with fellow oiler Dan Delaney and relief chief Michael Fleetwood. Prior to the
fueling process, the three met with the fuel truck driver to perform a pre-fueling safety
meeting. The procedure varies from ship to ship, but on the M/V TILLIKUM that night
the pre-fueling meeting was to occur on the car deck above the Engineering Operating
Station (EOS). Peak testified that Fleetwood came up the port stairwell from the EOS
like “his tail was on fire” because Fleetwood had slipped at the landing after coming up
the stairs. Peak did not remember what Fleetwood slipped on, but testified “I was
outside of the doorway and saw his head almost come near the door as he was coming
out.”
Fleetwood testified that as he “was going up to sign the paperwork for the [fuel]
truck driver . . . I open the door, and I hit my knee on – going over that door sill. [2] And I
made a big deal about it just so that – to make the oilers and the truck driver aware that
I had slipped on that stupid mat.” Fleetwood further described that same incident by
saying “[a]s I’m lifting over [the door coaming], the mat slipped, I lost purchase, and I hit
my knee on it and kind of grabbed the frame and carried on out the door.”
2 The “door sill” Fleetwood describes is identified in other testimony as a “coaming,” a
raised vertical section around hatch openings on a ship designed to deflect and prevent entry of
water.

85610-3-I/3
3
Fleetwood testified that he believed the specific mat used at the top of the
stairwell landing was the type of mat that was formerly in front of electrical devices in
the control room, but had to be replaced fleet-wide because the Coast Guard said they
were not the proper mat to have in that location. Fleetwood explained, “So these mats
– we had a bunch of these mats left over because we had to change them out. So this
mat, at one time, was probably in the control room, and it got moved up to that upper
landing.” Delaney described the mat as one that was placed there by the staff chief.3
Later in the evening of October 1, after Fleetwood had slipped, Delaney and
Peak left the car deck through the same port that Fleetwood used earlier and headed to
the EOS. Delaney descended first without issue. Peak followed.4 He stepped over the
coaming and put his right hand on the railing to take another step down the stairs when
“the next thing I know I was heading down the ladder . . . trying to arrest myself with my
hand.”
Delaney was still descending near the bottom of the stairs when he heard Peak
above him. Delaney heard a noise and got out of the way as quickly as he could before
Peak slid down the stairs on his back, falling at the bottom. Delaney testified that after
Peak fell, “I could see that the – the mat that, prior to this, was up against the – the
coaming – I could see that the mat was further out on the top platform. So I could see
that the mat had moved. But I did not see him slide – initially slide on the mat.” He
3 Delaney also testified that the treads on the stairs did not have a proper non-tread
surface, that he and others had slipped on the stairs, and that attempts to improve it made them
more slippery instead. Peak’s complaint and the summary judgment motion focused only on the
allegation that the mat at the top landing caused Peak to slip.
4 Peak testified that he believed Delaney was already downstairs when Peak attempted
to descend from the landing. But Delaney testified that he was going down the stairs just ahead
of Peak at the time.

85610-3-I/4
4
added that he could see “that the mat was away from that coaming and partially on – on
that platform lip where you saw the paint was kind of scuffed away, on that steel . . . it
was partially on that edge.”
At the time of the fall, Fleetwood was in the control room5 near the bottom of the
stairs when he heard a noise which he later stated was “Tom Peak falling down the
stairs.” The doorway between the control room and the bottom landing of the port
stairwell was closed at that time. Fleetwood rushed out of the room and, with Delaney,
helped Peak onto a chair. Peak was complaining about radiating lower back pain, and
the other two men gave him ice packs for his back.
The accident occurred around 11:50 p.m. Peak and Fleetwood digitally signed
their respective on-the-job injury reports dated the next day. Peak’s employee report
described the incident as “[w]hile descending port ladder from car deck to EOS, Oiler
Peak slipped on mat on upper landing (mat slides on smooth steel deck) and slid down
stairs on his back.” Fleetwood’s supervisor report described the incident as “Tom was
on upper landing slipped on rubber mat slid down the stairs fast on his back landed with
crash on the lower deck outside EOS I heard him falling and went to give first aid. 2350
was the time.” Both men signed their respective reports under penalty of perjury.
Peak sued WSDOT in October 2020. Peak asserted two causes of action:
negligence under the Jones Act,6 and that the M/V TILLIKUM was unseaworthy at the
5 Fleetwood uses the term EOS and “control room” interchangeably.
6 The Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30104, provides a federal cause of action for injured
seamen. The Jones Act provides in pertinent part:
A seaman injured in the course of employment . . . may elect to bring a civil action at
law, with the right of trial by jury, against the employer. Laws of the United States regulating
recovery for personal injury to, or death of, a railway employee apply to an action under this
section.

85610-3-I/5
5
time of his injury. Among the claimed damages, Peak listed “[m]aintenance and cure
according to proof.” In April 2021, Dr. Richard Seroussi, who evaluated Peak, declared
Peak at “maximum medical improvement given that he has gone through an array of
reasonable and necessary treatments, without any significant further improvement.”
Based on Seroussi’s report and the depositions of Peak, Delaney and Fleetwood,
WSDOT moved for summary judgment of all claims.
Delaney and Fleetwood testified that they did not actually see what happened
when Peak was on the stair’s top landing. In Peak’s deposition, taken in March of 2023,
he had trouble recalling what exactly happened when he stepped onto the landing to go
down the stairs. He said that before he “went from doing a normal movement to flying
downstairs,” he could remember specific details about the stairs, including a sprinkler
manifold across from the lower port stair landing that is visible on the descent, the rag in
his gloved left hand while he gripped a railing with his right, and his thoughts about
checking gauges on the deck he was descending to. But Peak could “not specifically”
recall what prompted him to start sliding down the stairs. When asked if he noticed the
mat slipping prior to his injury, Peak said he did not or he would have corrected it.
Peak submitted, in support of his opposition to the motion, declarations from
himself, Fleetwood, his vocational rehabilitation counselor Neil Bennett, and an expert
witness on ship safety, Russell Johnson. Peak’s declaration stated
About two hours after I was injured on the M/V TILLIKUM on October 1,
2019, I reported, with the relief Chief Michael Fleetwood, that when
The reference to statutes modifying or extending the common-law right or remedy in
cases of injury to railway employees incorporates the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA),
45 U.S.C. § 51, which provides for liability for injury “resulting in whole or in part from the
negligence of (the employer).”

85610-3-I/6
6
descending the port ladder from the car deck to the Engineer Operating
Station (EOS) I slipped on the mat on the upper landing because the mat
slid on the smooth, steel deck. This caused me to slide down the stairs of
the ladder on my back, permanently injuring my back.
. . .
I have no doubt that what I reported to the Washington State Ferries under
the penalty of perjury about two hours after I was injured was an accurate
description of how I was injured.
Fleetwood’s declaration stated that he “was a witness to a fall that Thomas Peak
sustained” and reiterated his belief that “[h]is accident occurred when Thomas Peak
slipped on a mat that was on the upper landing.” Fleetwood’s declaration also stated
that “I am aware that the mat was inadequately secured because of my personal
knowledge of the condition of the mat and its propensity to slide . . [e]arlier that shift,
when I was stepping out from the portside upper landing from the landing to the deck,
the mat slid out from under me and I sustained a slight unreported injury.” Johnson’s
declaration summarized the “appropriate standards for upkeep and maintenance of the
vessel” and applied those standards to describe the extent to which M/V TILLIKUM met
them, but Johnson also stated as a conclusion from his review of the record that Peak
had slipped on the mat.
WSDOT moved to strike all three declarations on the basis that Peak’s
declaration lacked a signature,7 that their declarations contradicted Peak’s and
Fleetwood’s prior deposition testimony, and that Johnson and Fleetwood had no basis
of personal knowledge to conclude that the mat caused Peak’s fall.
The trial court struck Peak’s declaration on the basis of inadmissibility and to the
extent that it “does not explain the basis for the discrepancy between his unequivocal
7 Peak’s declaration was filed on May 1 without a signature. His declaration was re-filed
on May 9 with a signature.

85610-3-I/7
7
deposition testimony and the incident report form that he signed.” The court also struck
portions of Fleetwood and Johnson’s declarations to the extent they state a belief that
Peak slipped on the mat on the landing when neither had personal knowledge as to that
fact. The trial court granted WSDOT’s motion and dismissed all of Peak’s claims.
Peak appeals.
DISCUSSION
Standard of Review
We review trial court rulings on summary judgment de novo. Dean v. Fishing Co.
of Alaska, Inc., 177 Wn.2d 399, 405, 300 P.3d 815 (2013). Summary judgment is
proper if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. CR 56(c); Dean, 177 Wn.2d at 405. The burden is on the
party moving for summary judgment to demonstrate there is no genuine dispute as to
any material fact, and reasonable inferences from the evidence must be resolved
against the moving party. Lamon v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 91 Wn.2d 345, 349, 588
P.2d 1346 (1979) (citing Morris v. McNicol, 83 Wn.2d 491, 494-95, 519 P.2d 7 (1974)).
Summary judgment is then appropriate if the plaintiff, as nonmoving party, “fails to make
a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s
case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Young v. Key
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 112 Wn.2d 216, 225, 770 P.2d 182 (1989).
The de novo standard of review applies to all trial court evidentiary rulings on
admissibility made in conjunction with a summary judgment motion. Keck v. Collins,
184 Wn.2d 358, 368, 357 P.3d 1080 (2015) (citing Folsom, 135 Wn.2d at 662-633)).8
8 However, when trial courts exclude evidence because it was untimely disclosed, it must
consider the factors from Burnet v. Spokane Ambulance, 131 Wn.2d 484, 933 P.2d 1036

85610-3-I/8
8
Causation
Peak’s complaint alleges that “he attempted to descend the port ladder from the
car deck to EOS and slipped on a mat that was on the upper landing, forcing him to
slide down the stairway and land on his back.” WSDOT moved for summary judgment
identifying one issue in its motion: “Is Defendant entitled to a dismissal with prejudice of
all of Plaintiff’s claims in his Complaint against Defendant because Plaintiff has no
record evidence as to what caused his fall on October 1, 2019?” During the summary
judgment hearing, the trial court asked counsel for WSDOT if there is a distinction with
regard to the applicable facts or law between the Jones Act claim and the
unseaworthiness claim. Counsel responded that while the claims have different legal
standards, “they both have causation elements and those are what really are key here
today. The distinction between the liability standards and the Jones Act and the
unseaworthiness are not heavily in play here.” After WSDOT presented argument, the
court turned to Peak’s counsel and said, “it seems to me that causation is the crux here,
right? As I understand defendant’s motion, it’s really limited to the elements of
causation.” Peak’s counsel agreed and WSDOT did not otherwise direct the court that
the motion was focused on anything other than causation.9
(1997). Keck, 184 Wn.2d at 368-69. In response to the motion for summary judgment, Peak
first submitted his unsigned declaration. WSDOT moved to strike Peak’s declaration because it
was unsigned. The next day, Peak filed a signed version with a surreply. He argued that the
trial court should not strike untimely evidence without conducting a Burnet analysis. The trial
court did not strike Peak’s declaration because it was untimely. WSDOT does not argue on
appeal that this court should affirm the court’s striking of Peak’s declaration on the basis of
untimeliness.
9 “The elements of a Jones Act negligence claim are: duty, breach, notice, and
causation.” Ribitzki v. Canmar Reading & Bates, Ltd. P’ship, 111 F.3d 658, 662 (9th Cir. 1997).
A claim of unseaworthiness requires that a plaintiff prove: (1) the warranty of seaworthiness
extended to the seaman and their duties; (2) their injury was caused by a piece of the ship’s
equipment or an appurtenant appliance; (3) the equipment used was not reasonably fit for its

85610-3-I/9
9
Peak contends that the trial court improperly dismissed his claims as a matter of
law.
Causation is generally a question of fact for the jury, unless “the proof is
insufficient to raise a reasonable inference that the act complained of was the proximate
cause of the injury.” Leaf v. United States, 588 F.2d 733, 736 (9th Cir. 1978), abrogated
on other grounds by Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 124 S. Ct. 2739, 159 L.
Ed. 2d 718 (2004). Proximate causation has two elements: legal cause and cause-in-
fact. Hartley v. State, 103 Wn.2d 768, 777, 698 P.2d 77 (1985). Cause in fact (also
known as “but for” causation) refers to the “physical connection between an act and an
injury.” Hartley, 103 Wn.2d at 778. The plaintiff must “establish that the harm suffered
would not have occurred but for an act or omission of the defendant.” Joyce v. Dep’t of
Corrections, 155 Wn.2d 306, 322, 119 P.3d 825 (2005). On summary judgment, a court
may determine a question of fact only if reasonable minds could reach but one
conclusion from the evidence. Ruff v. County of King, 125 Wn.2d 697, 703, 887 P.2d
886 (1995). “Cause in fact is usually a question for the trier of fact and is generally not
susceptible to summary judgment.” Martini v. Post, 178 Wn. App. 153, 164, 313 P.3d
473 (2013) (citing Owen v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. Co., 153 Wn.2d 780, 788, 108
P.3d 1220 (2005)).
A. Jones Act
“The quantum of evidence necessary to support a finding of Jones Act
negligence is less than that required for common law negligence . . . and even the
slightest negligence is sufficient to sustain a finding of liability.” Havens v. F/T Polar
intended usage; and (4) the unseaworthy condition proximately caused the injuries. Id. at 664
(citing Gebhard v. S.S. Hawaiian Legislator, 425 F.2d 1303, 1310-12 (9th Cir. 1970)).

85610-3-I/10
10
Mist, 996 F.2d 215, 218 (9th Cir.1993). As explained by the United States Supreme
Court, under the Jones Act “the test . . . is simply whether the proofs justify with reason
the conclusion that employer negligence played any part, even the slightest, in
producing the injury or death for which damages are sought.” Ferguson v. Moore-
McCormack Lines Inc., 352 U.S. 521, 523, 77 S. Ct. 457, 1 L. Ed. 2d 511 (1957)
(quoting Rogers v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 352 U.S. 500, 506, 77 S. Ct. 443, 1 L. Ed. 2d
493 (1957)). Courts must therefore exercise special care in considering summary
judgment to resolve cases under the Jones Act, which requires “a very low evidentiary
threshold for submission to a jury.” Lies v. Farrell Lines, Inc., 641 F.2d 765, 770 (9th
Cir. 1981) (citing Leonard v. Exxon Corp., 581 F.2d 522, 524 (5th Cir. 1978)).
WSDOT argues that Peak has provided no evidence regarding causation.
Relying on Peak’s deposition, WSDOT argues that “he does not know what caused him
to fall down the stairway and specifically admitted he does not remember the mat
slipping out from under him.” WSDOT further argues that there “were no eyewitnesses
to Peak’s fall. His two co-workers speculated that he slipped on the mat.” WSDOT
concludes that “[t]he only reasonable inference from Delaney’s and Peak’s testimony is
that Peak’s body moved the mat in some way as he was falling from a misstep.”
WSDOT appears to suggest that the only way Peak can prove causation is if he
personally testifies at trial that he remembers that his slip was caused by the mat or if
there was an eyewitness to the mat causing Peak’s accident. WSDOT relies on Hawley
v. Alaska S.S. Co., 236 F.2d 307 (9th Cir. 1956), Caldwell v. Manhattan Tankers Corp.,
618 F.2d 361 (5th Cir. 1980), and Smith v. Reinauer Oil Transp., Inc., 256 F.2d 646 (1st

85610-3-I/11
11
Cir. 1958) to support its contention that Jones Act claims like Peak’s should be dealt
with on summary judgment dismissal standard. All are distinguishable.
In Hawley, a seaman was injured while assisting the loading of cases of canned
salmon into a ship’s hold on a pallet board operated by a winch. 236 F.2d at 308. 	At
the close of plaintiff’s case, the trial court granted defendant’s motion for a judgment of
dismissal for insufficiency of the evidence to prove negligence under the Jones Act. Id.
The seaman claimed that the place of work was unsafe because it was a severely
confined space. Id. at 310. But he failed to show that the manner of loading the hold
was not the usual and customary one, and at the time of impact, the seaman could have
avoided the contact that caused the injury by a short backward movement in the space
behind him. Id. The seaman also contended that negligence was shown by placing
inexperienced cannery employees in the same crew with him, but on cross-examination
the seaman admitted that he was inexperienced and would not be able to say whether
others were capable cargo handlers or not. Id. at 310-11. The Ninth Circuit affirmed
the dismissal agreeing that the evidence was insufficient to take the case to the jury. Id.
at 311.
In Caldwell, a seaman slipped and caught his foot on one of the gangplank
runners while descending on the gangplank. 618 F.2d at 362. Fearing that he would
fall between the ship and the dock, he threw himself from the gangplank to the dock, a
distance of ten to eleven feet. Id. The impact upon the dock caused injury to the
worker’s leg. Id. The only evidence presented at trial was his own testimony, he never
saw any grease on the gangplank, his clothes or his shoes, and though he testified that
the gangplank area was not lit he was able to see where he was going. Id. No one

85610-3-I/12
12
witnessed the accident. Id. The Fifth Circuit upheld the directed verdict in favor of
defendant after plaintiff rested. Id. The appellate court held that the seaman’s evidence
“does not reasonably or even marginally intimate that the [defendant] was negligent or
that the ship was unseaworthy.” Id. at 363.
Smith was a wrongful death action under the Jones Act. 256 F.2d at 648.
“Nobody knows what exactly happened to [Smith] except that his dead body was fished
out of the water several months after his disappearance, and that the proven
circumstances warrant the inference that he fell into the water accidentally and was
accidentally drowned.” Id. The First Circuit upheld a judgment notwithstanding the
verdict in favor of the defendant. Id. at 650. The court reasoned, “[w]ith no basis other
than the fact that the vessel was an oil tanker, appellant suggests that Smith might have
slipped on the deck and accidentally fallen overboard due to the presence of oil
negligently allowed to remain on the deck. There was absolutely no evidence of this,
and the jury's verdict could not be supported on that theory.” Id. 650.
Unlike the plaintiffs in Hawley, Caldwell and Smith, Peak does present evidence
that connects his injury with what could be viewed as negligence of the shipowner.
Even if Peak is not able to remember at trial if he slipped on the mat, his testimony does
not contradict his claim that the mat contributed to his fall. A party may prove its case
through circumstantial evidence. E.g. State v. Taylor, 47 Wn.2d 213, 216, 287 P.2d 298
(1955) (“Verdicts in either civil or criminal cases may be based entirely upon
circumstantial evidence.”); Boguch v. Landover Corp., 153 Wn. App. 595, 610-11, 224
P.3d 795 (2009) (A plaintiff may prove the elements of negligence through
circumstantial evidence, but the facts must be so related as to show the theory of

85610-3-I/13
13
negligence is the only conclusion that fairly or reasonably can be drawn from them.). A
jury is not limited in its findings to the direct testimony of any one witness, but rather is
“free to accept, or reject, any part of the testimony of any witness.” Moen v. Chestnut, 9
Wn.2d 93, 102, 113 P.2d 1030 (1941).
Both Fleetwood and Delaney testified that a mat was on the landing above the
stairs on October 1, 2019. In an admitted portion of Fleetwood’s declaration, he states
“I am aware that the mat was inadequately secured because of my personal knowledge
of the condition of the mat and its propensity to slide when stepped on if the mat is on a
smooth metal surface.” Fleetwood further declared “[e]arlier that shift, when I was
stepping out from the portside upper landing from the landing to the deck, the mat slid
out from under me and I sustained a slight unreported injury.” Delaney’s deposition
testimony states his belief that the mat had “a very slick bottom to it” which “on a
painted steel surface . . . made it actually more dangerous for people to slip.” Delaney
also described how, while he was descending from the port landing down the stairwell,
he heard a noise above him and narrowly managed to step out of the way on the lower
ladder well, having turned in time to see Peak “coming down the ladder on his back.”
After Peak’s fall Delaney observed that the mat which he had personally descended
past “that, prior to this, was up against the – the coaming – I could see that the mat was
further out on the top platform. So I could see that the mat had moved.” The admitted
portions of expert Johnson’s declaration state that the type of mat identified by Delaney
as the mat that was on the upper landing “was not fit for its intended purpose and
should not have been used on the landing.” Johnson further noted that photographs
taken of the leading edges of the landing (without the mat) “appears worn, smooth, and

85610-3-I/14
14
damaged,” that “due to time constraints” nonskid was not applied to the landing despite
complaints by the crew, and that “[a] cursory inspection of the vessel would and should
have caused these hazards and defects to be remedied prior to [Peak]’s injury.”
The standard to determine a question of fact on summary judgement requires
that there be “but one” reasonable conclusion from the evidence, which must be at odds
with the causation alleged in the complaint. Hartley, 103 Wn.2d at 778. While WSDOT
insists that the only plausible theory of the fall is that Peak mis-stepped and his body
falling shifted the mat on his descent, Peak has presented evidence to support his
theory that the unsecured mat contributed to his fall. There is no one conclusion that a
reasonable mind could reach from the evidence. Ruff, 125 Wn.2d at 703. The question
of causation therefore must be left for the jury.
B. Unseaworthiness
A seaworthy ship is one that is reasonably fit for its intended use. Mitchell
v. Trawler Racer, Inc., 362 U.S. 539, 550 (1960). Unseaworthiness is a
form of strict liability, in that the plaintiff does not have to show fault. Miller
v. Arctic Alaska Fisheries Corp., 133 Wn.2d 250, 264-65 n.7, 944 P.2d
1005 (1997). To establish a claim for unseaworthiness, a plaintiff must
show that she (1) “was injured while in the ship’s service, (2) by a piece of
ship’s equipment, (3) which was not reasonably fit for its intended use.”
133 Wn.2d at 264. The doctrine of unseaworthiness is broad and extends
to almost any defective condition related to the ship, however temporary
that defective condition may be. Usner v. Luckenbach Overseas Corp.,
400 U.S. 494, 499 (1971). Unseaworthy conditions can arise from a wide
variety of circumstances. Usner, 400 U.S. at 499 (1971). The duty
extends to appliances “appurtenant” to the ship. Bishop v. Alaska S.S.
Co., 66 Wn.2d 704, 709-10, 404 P.2d 990 (1965). A ship is unseaworthy
if it is insufficiently or defectively equipped. Waldron v. Moore-McCormack
Lines, Inc., 386 U.S. 724, 726 (1967).

85610-3-I/15
15
Stinson v. State, No. 44004-1-II, slip op. 14-15 (Wash. Ct. App. Jan. 28, 2014)
(unpublished), https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2044004-1-
II%20%20Unpublished%20Opinion.pdf.10
Causation is more difficult to establish for unseaworthiness than for the
Jones Act. To establish causation in the case of unseaworthiness, a
plaintiff must demonstrate not only that the seaman was in service of the
ship, but also that a piece of the ship or the ship’s condition played a
substantial part in causing the plaintiff’s injuries.
Id. at 15 (citing Faraola v. O’Neill, 576 F.2d 1364, 1366 (9th Cir. 1978). Nonetheless,
summary judgment is inappropriate when, taking the facts in the light most favorable to
Peak, a reasonable jury could find that the type of mat identified by Delaney as the mat
that was on the upper landing “was not fit for its intended purpose and should not have
been used on the landing.”
WSDOT argues that this court may not consider expert Johnson’s opinion
because it relied on Delaney’s testimony and photographs of the mat and Delaney could
not recall if the mat in the photographs was the same mat at the top of the landing when
Peak fell. First, as stated above, the only portion of Johnson’s declaration that was
struck by the trial court was his opinion as to causation. The court did not strike
Johnson’s opinion offered with regards to the appropriate standards for upkeep and
maintenance of the vessel. Johnson based his testimony on the testimony and
photographs from Delaney, which included a photograph of a 3-by-4 foot Aramark mat
identified as Exhibit 2 to Delaney’s deposition. Johnson observed that
Fleetwood, identified that the mat Peak slipped on was one of the mats
that were used by Washington State Ferries (WSF) in that late 1990s early
10 We cite this unpublished opinion under GR 14.1(c), which provides that we may cite or
discuss unpublished opinions in our opinions if “necessary for a reasoned decision.” It is offered
to demonstrate Washington court’s reliance on federal cases in summary judgment motions of
unseaworthiness claims.

85610-3-I/16
16
2000s in the engine rooms of the vessels. Fleetwood testified that the
Coast Guard communicated to WSF the mats could not be used in
electrical spaces, so they were utilized in other spaces on the vessels.
This would make the age of the mat Peak slipped on approximately 20-25
years old. The Aramark mat was not fit for its intended purpose and
should not have been used on the landing.
. . .
The surface landing at the time the incident occurred (or shortly thereafter)
taken by Delaney appears smooth, worn, and rusted in areas. This is
consistent with the deposition testimony of Fleetwood and the injury report
he submitted for Peak’s October 1, 2019 injury (“While descending port
ladder from car deck to EOS, Oiler Peak slipped on mat on upper landing
(mat slides on smooth steel deck)”
. . .
There appears to be an outline of the location where the mat was placed
on the landing and where it has worn over time.
. . .
Oiler Delaney communicated to Chief Peter Miele that the landing was
slick, and he asked for nonskid to be applied. Chief Miele provided this
mat on the landing after port engineers communicated, they could not
apply nonskid due to time constraints. Oiler Delaney testified the black
mat had a “very slick bottom to it” and that “on a painted steel surface . . . .
made it actually more dangerous for people to slip.”
During a deposition, Delaney was asked about Exhibit 2. WSDOT’s counsel submitted
photographs taken in May 2023 of the subject landing showing its measurement to be
42 inches wide and 34 inches deep. Delaney testified that he did take a picture of the
actual mat at the top of the ladder a couple of days after Peak’s injury. Delaney said
Exhibit 2 “looked very similar to the one that was at the top” and that it “looks exactly
like the mat.” Delaney testified that he could not say “if [Exhibit 2 depicts] the exact
same mat,” but that “[t]he bottom of it looks exactly like the one that was at the top of
the ladder.”
As discussed above, Peak, in his deposition taken more than three years after
the fall, could not specifically say what caused him to start sliding and did not notice the
mat slip prior to his injury. Notably, Peak did not testify that he fell because he simply

85610-3-I/17
17
stepped off the landing. Peak said the incident “was very quick, ‘I’ve got something
under my feet and I don’t have anything under my feet.’” As discussed above,
Fleetwood testified that he had personal knowledge that the mat was not secure
because earlier in the shift, he, himself, had slid on the mat and sustained a slight
unreported injury. And Delaney testified the mat was up against the coaming before he
ascended, but saw the mat was away from the coaming and partially on the platform lip
after Peak fell.
Taking the facts in light most favorable to Peak, a reasonable jury could
determine that the unsecured mat that was at the top of the landing when Peak fell was
not fit for its intended purpose and constituted a substantial factor in Peak’s injury as he
worked as a seaman on the M/V TILLIKUM. Thus, summary judgment was
inappropriate on his unseaworthiness claim.
Breach and Notice
WSDOT also argues, for the first time on appeal, that “Peak cannot point to any
evidence on the record to create a genuine issue of material fact as to breach, notice or
causation – all crucial elements of his negligence claim.” But its summary judgment
motion identified the single issue of causation and argument during the summary
judgment hearing was consistent with that motion. We decline to entertain any
additional arguments that were not raised in WSDOT’s motion for summary judgment.
“On review of an order granting or denying a motion for summary judgment the
appellate court will consider only evidence and issues called to the attention of the trial
court.” Johnson v. Lake Cushman Maint. Co., 5 Wn. App. 2d 765, 780, 425 P.3d 560
(2018) (quoting RAP 9.12). “An argument that was neither pleaded nor argued to the

85610-3-I/18
18
superior court on summary judgment cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.” Id.
(citing Sourakli v. Kyriakos, Inc., 144 Wn. App. 501, 509, 182 P.3d 985 (2008)).
We hold that genuine issues of material fact remain as to causation and reverse
the trial court’s summary judgment dismissal of the negligence and unseaworthiness
claims.11
Maintenance and Cure
“Maritime common law requires that a shipowner pay a seaman a daily
subsistence allowance (maintenance) and medical treatment (cure) when the seaman
becomes ill or injured in the service of a vessel.” Tuyen Thanh Mai v. Am. Seafoods
Co., LLC, 160 Wn. App. 528, 538, 249 P.3d 1030 (2011) (citing Kasprik v. United
States, 87 F.3d 462, 464 (11th Cir.1996)). “‘Maintenance’ is a per diem living allowance
for food and lodging comparable to what the seaman is entitled to while at sea; ‘cure’ is
payment of medical expenses incurred in treating the seaman’s injury or illness.” Dean,
177 Wn.2d at 406. The seaman’s entitlement to maintenance and cure continues until
they reach maximum medical recovery (alternatively referred to as maximum cure). Id.
Maximum medical recovery is the point at which “‘it appears that the seaman’s condition
is incurable, or that future treatment will merely relieve pain and suffering but not
otherwise improve the seaman’s physical condition.’” Tuyen Thanh Mai, 160 Wn. App.
at 539 (quoting Gaspard v. Taylor Diving & Salvage Co., 649 F.2d 372, 374 n.3 (5th Cir.
11 Because we reverse based on the admitted evidence, we need not consider whether
the trial court improperly struck portions of Peak’s three declarations filed in opposition to the
motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, we also need not consider WSDOT’s motion to
strike portions of Peak’s reply brief challenging the striking of portions of Johnson’s declaration.
To the extent WSDOT challenges Peak’s reliance on the portion of Johnsons’ declaration
relating to standards for upkeep and maintenance of the vessel, we deny WSDOT’s motion to
strike that portion because the trial court did not strike that portion of the declaration.

85610-3-I/19
19
1981)). “If the seaman thereafter needs attention to maintain his improvement at the
maximum, to assist him in recovery from relapses, or to restrain the progress of the
disease, the shipowner is not bound to provide that.” Muruaga v. United States, 172
F.2d 318, 321 (2nd Cir. 1949).
A shipowner’s duty to pay maintenance and cure is “‘virtually automatic.’” Dean,
177 Wn.2d at 409 (quoting Baucom v. Sisco Stevedoring, LLC, 506 F. Supp. 2d 1064,
1073 (S.D. Ala. 2007)). “A shipowner’s duty to pay maintenance and cure is so broad
that it arises regardless of the shipowner’s fault or negligence or the seaman’s
contributory fault.” Id. at 408 (citing Aguilar v. Standard Oil Co. of N.J., 318 U.S. 724,
735, 63 S. Ct. 930, 87 L. Ed. 1107 (1943)).
Damages caused by a wrongful denial of maintenance and cure are
decided according to “‘an escalating scale of liability.’” If a vessel owner is
in fact liable for maintenance and cure but reasonably rejected the
seaman’s claim, the owner incurs liability only for the amount of
maintenance and cure owed. But if the vessel owner’s refusal was
unreasonable, then the owner incurs liability for compensatory damages in
addition to maintenance and cure. And if the vessel owner acts not only
unreasonably but in a “callous and recalcitrant, arbitrary and capricious, or
willful, callous and persistent” manner, the owner incurs additional liability
for punitive damages and attorney fees.
Tuyen Thanh Mai, 160 Wn. App. at 540.
We agree with WSDOT that Peak conflates no-fault maintenance and cure under
maritime law with his liability claims. Peak has never asserted a claim for wrongful
denial of maintenance and cure. He listed “[m]aintenance and cure” as asserted
damages as a “direct and proximate result” of his negligence and unseaworthiness
claims. In response to WSDOT’s summary judgment motion, Peak stated, “[a]s a
preliminary matter, Plaintiff is not making claims for general maritime benefits or punitive
damages in this matter. To the extent they were pled, those claims are withdrawn.”

85610-3-I/20
20
Peak then argued below, as he continues to do on appeal, that his “maintenance and
cure claim” should not be dismissed because WSDOT “has not fully compensated
Plaintiff for the maintenance and cure for the injuries he sustained while working for
[Washington State Ferries] on October 1, 2019.”
“Summary disposition of maintenance and cure claims is generally not
appropriate. 2 Robert Force & Martin J. Norris, The Law of Seaman § 26:43, at 26-101
(5th ed. 2003). The extent of a seaman’s injuries and whether a seaman has reached
maximum cure are factual questions, not legal questions.” Dean, 177 Wn.2d at 410-11.
“Any ambiguities whether maximum cure has been reached are to be resolved in favor
of the seaman.” Sefcik v. Ocean Pride Alaska, Inc., 844 F. Supp. 1372, 1374 (D.
Alaska 1993) (citing Kratzer v. Capital Marine Supply, Inc., 490 F. Supp. 222 (M.D. La.
1980)).
In a response to WSDOT’s Request for Admission No. 5, Peak stated he “admits
that his doctors have determined that he has reached maximum medical improvement.”
Peak reiterated in his deposition that “[t]he last time I saw something specifically for my
back – the back pain from the accident on the Tillikum was the diagnosis that the doctor
made that I had reached maximum medical improvement.” He answered in the
affirmative when asked if this last medical visit for his back was in 2021. This is
consistent with Dr. Seroussi’s report completed in 2021. In answer to Interrogatory No.
17 (“Please list with as much specificity as possible all pecuniary losses you contend
you have suffered as a result of the Incident referred to in your Complaint including type
and amount of each such claimed loss.”), Peak stated that he “believes that his past
medical bills were paid, and his maintenance was paid up to when he reached

85610-3-I/21
21
maximum medical improvement.” Peak admitted in response to WSDOT Request for
Admission No. 1 that he “was paid maintenance benefits up until he was at maximum
medical improvement.” He further admitted “that he believes that all medical bills have
been paid by [WSDOT],” and positively affirmed that his complaint “does not state a
claim for unpaid general maritime benefits.”
Peak argues that dismissal of his maintenance and cure claim is improper
because he has not yet been “fully compensated . . . for the maintenance and cure for
the injuries he sustained.” He submits the declaration of his vocational rehabilitation
counselor, Bennett, who stated that Peak “will require future treatment” for his injury.
In Dean, the Washington Supreme Court held that “if a shipowner stops paying
maintenance and cure to a seaman because it has determined that the seaman has
reached maximum cure, a trial court errs by applying a summary judgment standard to
a seaman’s motion to reinstate maintenance and cure.” 177 Wn.2d at 415. The Dean
court further states that in the event of such a motion, the trial court should order the
shipowner to reinstate payments under maintenance and cure “unless the shipowner
can provide unequivocal evidence that the seaman has reached maximum cure.” Id.
In a statement of additional authority, Peak cites to this court’s recent decision in
Matthew Aird v. Washington State Dep’t of Transp., No. 85611-1-I, slip op. at 1 (Wash.
Ct. App. May 20, 2024) (unpublished),
https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/856111.pdf.12 In Aird, WSDOT closed Aird’s
claim and discontinued paying maintenance and cure benefits after his treating
12 “[U]npublished opinions of the Court of Appeals filed on or after March 1, 2013, may
be cited as nonbinding authorities, if identified as such by the citing party, and may be accorded
such persuasive value as the court deems appropriate.” GR 14.1(a). Here, we are responding
to Peak's citation of this case as persuasive authority.

85610-3-I/22
22
physician determined that Aird had reached maximum medical improvement. Id. at 1.
Aird later petitioned to reinstate his claim after his surgeon testified that he believed,
based on his knowledge and experience, that Aird could benefit from further care and
had not reached maximum medical improvement. Id. at 3. We held that there are
material issues of fact as to whether or not Aird reached maximum medical
improvement. Id. 12.
Unlike the contradictory evidence in Aird, in the instant case Peak admits that his
doctors have determined that he has reached maximum medical improvement and did
not submit any evidence that any doctor disagreed with that determination. Instead, he
relies on testimony from his vocational rehabilitation counselor, Bennett, who asserted
that Dr. Seroussi “substantially endorsed and agreed with” “future medical treatment.”
Bennett’s declaration included a letter from the physician who had previously evaluated
Peak and gave Bennett feedback on his recommended life care plan (LCP) for Peak. In
the letter, the physician commented that Bennett’s LCP did not include the physician’s
projection of “40-60 visits of noninvasive or minimally invasive treatment over the
patient’s estimated lifespan, separate from projected physical therapy needs, involving
chiropractic, massage and/or acupuncture.” The physician also clarified that
I do not believe that these projected visits would further improve the
patient’s chronic injuries, but they likely would help with intermittent
flareups, in addition to the physical therapy visits projected within the LCP.
The physician offered to provide further input regarding diagnosis, treatment options,
functional status and prognosis. But Peak did not submit any testimony from Dr.
Seroussi that Peak had not reached maximum medical improvement. At most, Peak
submitted, through Bennett, testimony of what Peak needed to maintain his

85610-3-I/23
23
improvement at the maximum for his LCP. See Muruaga v. United States, 172 F.2d
318, 321 (2nd Cir. 1949). Moreover, Peak, in response to the motion for summary
judgment, did not disavow or otherwise explain his own admissions that his doctors
have determined he has reached maximum medical improvement.
The trial court did not err in dismissing Peak’s claim for maintenance and cure.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the trial court’s dismissal of Peak’s claims of unseaworthiness and
negligence, but affirm its dismissal of Peak’s claim for maintenance and cure damages.
WE CONCUR: