OPINION
CLAY, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff, Glenda Churchwell, appeals an order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants, Bluegrass Marine, Inc., Marquette Transportation Company Inc., and Motor Vessel
Marie Hendrick,
and dismissing Plaintiffs claims of 1) unseaworthiness in violation of general maritime law, and 2) negligence in violation of the Jones Act. For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs claims.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs personal injury claims arise out of an accident that occurred aboard Defendants’ ship, the
Marie Hendrick,
on May 9, 2002, where Plaintiff was employed as a cook. Plaintiff was cleaning the kitchen after having served the crew breakfast. She poured grease from a skillet into a coffee can. According to Plaintiff, a crewman named Larry had instructed her that the grease must be kept in the coffee can. Plaintiff then picked up the coffee can to place it back in its corner. She picked up the can by its rim using her right hand and placing her thumb in the interior of the can while placing remainder of her hand on the outside of the can. Apparently, the inside of the can was greasy, and the can slipped from Plaintiffs fingers. The can hit the counter and fell onto the floor. The grease, which was not hot, landed on the counter, Plaintiff, and the smooth, solid floor mat on which Plaintiff was standing. Plaintiff took one step backwards and
slipped in the grease on the floor. Plaintiff sustained back injuries from her fall.
According to Plaintiff, she would not have dropped the grease can if she had been allowed to place it in a container with handles, and she would not have slipped if the mat had contained holes to re-direct the grease. Plaintiff obtained the services of Dr. Huston,
an engineer, to support her argument that Defendants’ failure to provide mats with holes (“grease mats”) and a container with a handle created a dangerous work environment. Dr. Huston testified at his deposition that Defendants should have placed a grease mat in the kitchen because spills in a kitchen are foreseeable and unavoidable. Additionally, Dr. Huston testified that Defendants should have provided Plaintiff with a grease container that had a handle. According to Dr. Huston, grease containers with handles are commercially available. Finally, Dr. Huston testified that it was his opinion that Defendants’ failure to provide grease mats and a container with a handle made Plaintiffs accident more likely. Specifically, a container with a handle would have decreased the likelihood of spills and a grease mat would have substantially decreased the likelihood of accidents from spilled liquid by containing and diverting the liquid.
Defendants moved
in limine
to exclude Dr. Huston’s testimony. They argued that Dr. Huston’s testimony improperly characterized them duties under the relevant law by implying that Defendants had a duty to provide an accident-free work place. Additionally, Defendants argued that Dr. Huston’s testimony that safer alternatives existed,
i.e.,
the grease mat and container with handle, was irrelevant to the issues in this case. According to Defendants, the existence of safer alternatives does not render the existing conditions unsafe.
That same day, Defendants moved for summary judgment. Defendants argued that the negligent manner in which Plaintiff picked up the grease container was the sole cause of Plaintiffs injuries. Defendants pointed to Dr. Huston’s admission that if Plaintiff had picked up the container with two hands or if she had placed the container on a tray to move it that she would have been less likely to drop it. Thus, according to Defendants, summary judgment was proper because: (1) Defendants had not breached any duty by providing an unreasonably dangerous work environment; and (2) Plaintiffs own negligence was the proximate cause of her injuries rendering the primary duty rule a bar to Plaintiffs suit.
Plaintiff eventually responded to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment but failed to respond to their motion
in limine.
Thus, the district court granted Defendants’ motion
in limine,
holding that: (1) Dr. Huston’s testimony that the
Marie Hendrick’s
kitchen was unreasonably dangerous was an inadmissible legal conclusion; and (2) Dr. Huston’s testimony regarding safer alternatives to the grease can and slippery mats was irrelevant. The district court also granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, holding that there was no evidence that Defendants had breached their duty of “ordinary prudence” under the Jones Act or that the
Mane Hendrick
was unseaworthy. The court reasoned that no similar mishaps had occurred in the past, Plaintiff failed to
present evidence that the mats and grease container violated custom, and the danger from the grease was open and apparent. It further reasoned that Plaintiffs own negligence caused the accident. Finally, the district court rejected Plaintiffs maintenance and cure claim on the ground that Plaintiff was no longer capable of further recovery and any treatment would only serve to alleviate pain and suffering. Plaintiff now appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants on her unseaworthiness and Jones Act claims but not on her maintenance and cure claim.
II.
DISCUSSION
The district court erred in granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs unseaworthiness and Jones Act claims. Plaintiff presents sufficient evidence such that she could prevail on both claims at trial. Moreover, contrary to Defendants assertions, Plaintiffs own negligence does not provide an adequate basis on which to grant summary judgment. Maritime law espouses a system of comparative negligence, in which a plaintiffs own negligence does not bar recovery. The only exception to this rule is the primary duty doctrine, under which the employee responsible for maintaining safe conditions may not sue his employer for his own failure to maintain safe conditions. As the primary duty doctrine has no application in this case, Plaintiffs alleged negligence is not grounds for summary judgment. Therefore, we reverse the order of the district court, granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants.
A. Standard of Review
This Court reviews a district court order granting summary judgment
de novo. Rannals v. Diamond Jo Casino,
265 F.3d 442, 447 (6th Cir.2001). Summary judgment is only proper where “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). In reviewing a grant of summary judgement, we draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.
Rannals,
265 F.3d at 447. “In particular, when we review a grant of summary judgment involving claims under the Jones Act, we are mindful of the policy of providing expansive remedies for seamen who are injured while acting in the course of their employment and recognize that the submission of Jones Act claims to a jury requires a very low evidentiary threshold.”
Id.
(internal quotations omitted). Plaintiff must offer “more than a scintilla of evidence in order to create a jury question on the issue ... but not much more.”
See Aparicio v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co.
84 F.3d 803, 810 (6th Cir.1996) (addressing a FELA negligence claim).
B. Analysis
1. Dr. Huston’s Testimony
As a threshold matter, we note that we may not consider Dr. Huston’s testimony in determining whether Plaintiff demonstrates the existence of genuine issues of material fact. We conclude that we may not consider Dr. Huston’s testimony because Plaintiff failed to preserve its admissibility for this Court’s review. The district court excluded Dr. Huston’s testimony in response to Defendants’ motion
in limine.
Despite being given multiple opportunities in the district court to respond to Defendants’ motion, Plaintiff failed to oppose the motion. Therefore, Plaintiff failed to preserve this issue for our review,
and we cannot now disregard the district court order excluding Dr. Huston’s testimony. Ba
rner v. Pilkington N. Am.,
399 F.3d 745, 749 (6th Cir.2005) (holding that a party must alert the trial court to the legal basis for the admission of evidence in order preserve the right to appeal the trial court’s exclusion of evidence).
2. Plaintiffs Unseaworthiness Claim
The district court erred in granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs unseaworthiness claim because Plaintiff offered sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to each element of her unseaworthiness claim.
a. The Doctrine of Seaworthiness
A ship owner is strictly liable for personal injuries caused by his or her vessel’s “unseaworthiness.”
Mitchell v. Trawler Racer, Inc.,
362 U.S. 539, 549, 80 S.Ct. 926, 4 L.Ed.2d 941 (1960). A vessel is unseaworthy if the vessel and its appurtenances are not “reasonably fit for their intended use.”
Mitchell,
362 U.S. at 550, 80 S.Ct. 926. Defective gear, an unfit or understaffed crew, or the use of an improper method of storage or unloading cargo all render a vessel unseaworthy.
Morales v. City of Galveston,
370 U.S. 165, 170, 82 S.Ct. 1226, 8 L.Ed.2d 412 (1962). Even the misuse of properly functioning equipment may render a vessel unseaworthy if the misuse occurs at the direction of a superior.
Waldron v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc.,
386 U.S. 724, 726-28, 87 S.Ct. 1410, 18 L.Ed.2d 482 (1967) (citing
Crumady v. The Joachim Hendrik Fisser,
358 U.S. 423, 427, 79 S.Ct. 445, 3 L.Ed.2d 413 (1959)). Generally, unseaworthiness is a question of fact for the jury and should not be resolved by the district court as a matter of law.
See Cook v. American S.S. Co.,
53 F.3d 733, 742 (6th Cir.1995) (citing
Roper v. United States,
368 U.S. 20, 82 S.Ct. 5, 7 L.Ed.2d 1 (1961)),
overruled on other grounds by Gen. Elec. v. Joiner,
522 U.S. 136, 143, 118 S.Ct. 512, 139 L.Ed.2d 508 (1997).
To prevail on an unseaworthiness claim, a plaintiff must establish that a vessel’s unseaworthy condition was the proximate cause of his or her injuries.
Miller v. Am. President Lines, Ltd.,
989 F.2d 1450, 1463-64 (6th Cir.1993). A vessel’s unseaworthiness is the proximate cause of a plaintiffs injuries if it was a substantial factor in causing such injuries.
Id.
at 1464. In other words, unseaworthiness proximately causes an injury if it “ ‘ played a substantial part in bringing about or actually causing the injury and the injury was either a direct result or a reasonably probable consequence of unseaworthiness.’ ”
Id.
(quoting
Johnson v. Offshore Express, Inc.,
845 F.2d 1347, 1354 (5th Cir.1988)).
b. Summary Judgment was Improper
Plaintiffs testimony creates sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material facts as to both elements of an unseaworthiness claim: (1) the unseaworthy condition of the ship; and (2) proximate causation.
i. Unseaworthy Condition
Plaintiffs testimony creates a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the absence of grease mats and a container with a handle rendered the
Marie Hendrick
unseaworthy. A vessel may be unseaworthy because it contains defective gear, is missing necessary gear, or because its crew is instructed to use unsafe work methods.
Morales,
370 U.S. at 170, 82 S.Ct. 1226;
see Waldron,
386 U.S. at 727, 87 S.Ct. 1410 (holding that crew’s misuse of equipment pursuant to order rendered vessel unseaworthy). According to Plain
tiffs deposition testimony, the kitchen did not contain grease mats or containers with handles, which are arguably necessary gear. Additionally, Plaintiff testified that she was instructed to pour grease into a coffee can, an arguably unsafe work method. Although the admission of Dr. Huston’s testimony undoubtedly would have strengthened Plaintiffs contention that these conditions rendered the
Mane Hendrick
unseaworthy, a jury does not need expert testimony to conclude that Defendants’ failure to provide grease mats and a container with a handle rendered Plaintiffs work environment unsafe. These issues fall squarely within the type of knowledge that most persons obtain through everyday life experiences.
Cf. Butera v. District of Columbia,
235 F.3d 637, 659 (D.C.Cir.2001) (applying District of Columbia law);
Dillingham v. IBP, Inc.,
219 F.3d 797, 799 (8th Cir.2000) (applying Kansas law);
U.S. v. Corey,
207 F.3d 84, 97 n. 11 (1st Cir.2000) (quoting 29 Charles Alan Wright
&
Victor James Gold, Federal Practice and Procedure § 6274 (1997)) (“On the other hand, expert testimony does not assist where the jury has no need [ ] for an opinion because it easily can be derived from common sense, common experience, the jury’s own perceptions, or simple logic.”). Because reasonable people could disagree about whether the absence of grease mats and containers with handles rendered Plaintiffs work space unsafe, this issue should be submitted to the jury.
See Hatch v. Durocher Dock & Dredge Co.,
33 F.3d 545, 547 (6th Cir.1994) (holding that where reasonable people applying the proper legal standard could disagree the claim should be submitted to the jury).
Accordingly, we reject Defendants argument that proof of a safer work environment or methods is inadmissible.
. The Federal Rules of Evidence require district courts to admit all relevant evidence unless such evidence is otherwise inadmissible.
See
Fed.R.Evid. 402. The rules define relevant evidence as “evidence having
any tendency to
make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable than it would be without the evidence.” Fed.R.Evid. 401 (emphasis added). As the Supreme Court and this Court have noted on numerous occasions, this standard of relevancy is liberal.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc.,
509 U.S. 579, 587, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993);
Hildebrand v. Bd. of Trustees of Mich. State Univ.,
607 F.2d 705, 713 n. 15 (6th Cir.1979).
We believe that evidence of a safer environment or method is relevant within the meaning of Rule 401. Plaintiff is suing Defendants for failure to maintain safe working conditions and negligence and thus must demonstrate that Defendants failed to exercise reasonable or ordinary care in outfitting the kitchen. “Typically, this involves a person’s giving attention both to possible dangers, mistakes and pitfalls and to ways of ensuring that these pitfalls do not materialize.” Black’s Law Dictionary 204 (7th ed.1999) (defining care in the context of negligence). Proof that a safer alternative existed makes it “more probable” that Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care in outfitting the kitchen.
The advisory committee notes to Rule 407, which precludes the introduction of subsequent remedial measures to prove negligence, provide an illustrative analogy. Fed.R.Evid. 407 advisory committee’s notes. According to the advisory committee notes, evidence of subsequent remedial measures are excludable for policy reasons
and not because such measures are irrelevant.
Id.
The notes indicate that one could logically infer from a defendant’s decision to take subsequent remedial measures that defendant’s prior conduct or failure to take such measures was negligent.
Id.
Although Plaintiffs testimony in this case does not cover subsequent remedial measures,' the implication from the advisory committee notes is nonetheless clear. Evidence of an alternative to allegedly negligent conduct is relevant, and thus admissible, unless excluded by another rule of evidence for policy reasons. In this case, no such exclusionary rule exists.
See generally
Fed.R.Evid. Art. IV, Relevancy And Its Limits (containing no applicable exclusionary rule).
Locke v. River Lines, Inc.,
248 F.Supp. 92 (N.D.Cal.1964), does contradict this holding. In
Locke,
the district court determined that the existence of a safer docking procedure did not render the procedures used by the defendant negligent or unsafe.
Id.
at 94.
Locke,
however, addressed the sufficiency of evidence and not the admissibility of evidence.
Id.
In
Locke
the court admitted expert testimony regarding safer docking procedures but found that such testimony, alone, did not prove that the defendant’s method was unsafe.
Id.
Unlike in
Locke,
the issue in this case is not whether evidence of a safer environment or measures alone proves that Defendants were negligent, but rather whether such evidence makes it more probable that Defendants were negligent. As discussed above, we believe that it does make it more probable that Defendants were negligent.
Finally, we also reject Defendants’ argument that the
Marie Hendrick
was not unseaworthy because Plaintiff had a safe alternative to grasping the coffee can with one hand: she could have used two hands. Defendants cite several cases from outside this Circuit to support this argument. These cases are not on point, however, because the defendants in the cited cases all clearly met their duty of care. That is, in the cited cases there was nothing more that the defendants could have done to prevent the accidents and make the ship safer.
See Lyons v. Ohio River Sand and Gravel Co.,
683 F.2d 99 (4th Cir.1982) (holding that the defendant was not negligent for sending one man to obtain a screen because it was unforeseeable that the screen would be buried under heavy objects that the plaintiff would choose to lift without asking for help when the general practice on the ship was to give assistance to others in such situations);
Robinson v. Zapata Corp.,
664 F.2d 45 (5th Cir.1981) (holding that the ship was not unseaworthy for failing to provide the plaintiff welder with a clamp to secure a piece of metal where other equipment/methods existed to insure the metal held in place and the plaintiff, with knowledge of these methods, chose not to secure the metal);
Fueston v. Lykes Bros. Steamship Co.,
550 F.Supp. 139 (N.D.Cal.1982) (holding that a ship was not unseaworthy where the plaintiff slipped after choosing not to climb the ladder leading to top platform but and instead climbed a ladder and leaped to the top platform).
The
accidents in these cases were caused by the plaintiffs’
unforeseeable
decisions not to use the safe alternatives provided by the defendants. In this case, it is debatable whether the “alternative” provided by Defendants — a two hand method of gripping the coffee can — was adequate to meet its duty to provide a safe environment.
See Ribitzki v. Canmar Reading & Bates Ltd.,
111 F.3d 658 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that whether the defendant met its duty of care was an issue for the jury where the plaintiff could have avoided the accident by using a safer method but where defendant could have prevented the accident by providing a larger space for the plaintiffs work). Spills are still likely to occur if Defendants’ employees adopt the two hand method. In light of the foreseeable nature of spills even accepting Defendants’ two hand method, it seems reasonable for Plaintiff to argue that Defendants nonetheless had a duty to provide grease mats. Ultimately, it is the job of the jury to determine whether Defendants met their duty or whether Defendants should have provided a container with handles and/or grease mats.
Id.
(holding that whether a defendant meets its duty is generally a jury issue).
ii. Causation
Plaintiff has also offered sufficient evidence of proximate causation to create a genuine issue of material fact. Again, Plaintiff is free to testify that the lack of adequate flooring was a substantial factor causing her to slip and that the lack of a container with a handle was a substantial factor contributing to the container slipping from her grip. Plaintiff does not need an expert to testify about such causation in order to submit this issue to the jury. These issues fall squarely within the type of knowledge that most persons obtain through everyday life experiences. Because reasonable people could disagree about whether these conditions were substantial factors causing Plaintiffs accident, causation is properly an issue for the jury.
See id.
3. Plaintiffs Jones Act Claim
The district court erred in granting summary judgment on Plaintiffs Jones Act claim because Plaintiff offered sufficient evidence to create genuine issues of material fact as to each element of her Jones Act claim.
a. The Jones Act
The Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.App. § 688,
authorizes seamen to maintain negligence actions for personal injury suffered in the course of employment. The Act expressly incorporates all portions of FELA that modify and extend the common law as applied to actions by railroad employees.
Id.
Thus, under the Jones Act, an employer has a duty to provide a safe workplace for its employees, and to prevail under the Jones Act a “plaintiff must show that her employer [breached this duty by] failing to provide a safe workplace by neglecting to cure or eliminate obvious dangers of which the employer or its agents knew or should have known.”
Rannals,
265 F.3d at 449-50 (citations omitted). Once a plaintiff establishes that the employer breached his or her duty of care, however, the plaintiff need not establish proximate causation but “only show that the defendant’s actions, however slight, contributed in some way
toward causing the plaintiffs injuries.”
Miller,
989 F.2d at 1463 (citation omitted);
see also
45 U.S.C. § 52 (authorizing damages where an “injury ... result[s] in whole or in part from ... negligence”).
Plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to each element of her Jones Act claim: (1) the kitchen was unreasonably dangerous; (2) the dangerous condition caused Plaintiff to fall; and (3) Defendants should have known about the dangerous condition. As discussed above in relation to the unseaworthiness claim, Plaintiff has offered sufficient evidence that her work area was unreasonably dangerous and that the dangerous conditions caused her to fall. This analysis applies equally to her Jones Act claim. In fact, the requisite level of causation is lower under the Jones Act. Additionally, there is sufficient evidence that Defendants should have been aware of the dangerous condition of their kitchen. Spills in a kitchen are reasonably foreseeable, and Defendants should know what type of equipment their kitchen contains,
i.e.,
the absence of grease mats and containers with handles.
See Ribitzki,
111 F.3d at 663-64 (holding that a ship owner was on constructive notice of permanent conditions on ship). Therefore, Plaintiffs Jones Act claim should have been submitted to the jury.
See id.
4. Plaintiffs Alleged Negligence
Plaintiffs alleged negligence does not provide a proper basis for summary judgment. Maritime law espouses a system of comparative negligence, in which a plaintiffs negligence does not preclude recovery. The only exception to this rule is the primary duty doctrine, which has no application in this case.
a. System of Comparative Negligence
Maritime law espouses a system of comparative negligence.
Miller,
989 F.2d at 1459-63. “This defense requires ... evidence that the seaman chose to perform a task in a manner that placed him in danger despite the fact that there were alternative means available to him”
Wilson v. Maritime Overseas Corp.,
150 F.3d 1, 11 (1st Cir.1998) (citing
Burden v. Evansville Materials, Inc.,
840 F.2d 343, 346 (6th Cir.1988)). If such evidence exists, the issue of the plaintiffs comparative negligence is submitted to the jury and the plaintiffs damages are reduced by the degree of fault that the jury assigns to plaintiffs behavior.
Miller,
989 F.2d at 1461-62. It is well-established that comparative negligence applies to unseaworthiness claims as well as Jones Act claims.
Id.
at 1461-6 (citing
Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn,
346 U.S. 406, 408-09, 74 S.Ct. 202, 98 L.Ed. 143 (1953));
see also Cook,
53 F.3d at 741.
The doctrine of contributory negligence, however, does not preclude a plaintiff from complete recovery on unseaworthiness or Jones Act claims.
Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn,
346 U.S. 406, 408-09, 74 S.Ct. 202, 98 L.Ed. 143 (1953). “The harsh rule of the common law under which contributory negligence wholly barred an injured person from recovery is completely incompatible with modern admiralty policy and practice. Exercising its traditional discretion, admiralty has developed and now follows its own fairer and more flexible rule which allows such consideration of contributory negligence in mitigation of damages as justice requires.”
Id.; see also
45 U.S.C. § 53 (abolishing contributory negligence as a bar to recovery in
FELA and Jones Act claims). Similarly, assumption of risk may not be raised as a defense in either type of action, even to prevent partial recovery.
See Burden,
840 F.2d at 346; 45 U.S.C. § 54 (abolishing assumption of risk as a defense to negligence in FELA and Jones Act suits).
In this case, Defendants offer evidence that Plaintiffs own negligence caused her injury. As discussed above, contributory negligence does not bar recovery on Jones Act and unseaworthiness claims. Maritime law espouses a system of comparative negligence in which the plaintiffs damages are reduced by the plaintiffs degree of fault. Thus, the jury should be instructed on comparative negligence and allowed to determine whether Plaintiff was negligent and, if so, the degree of Plaintiffs fault for her injuries. Plaintiffs alleged negligence, however, does not bar recovery.
See Ribitzki,
111 F.3d at 662 (holding that the plaintiffs negligence does not “cancel out” the defendant’s negligence).
Defendants cite the First Circuit’s decision in
Wilson
to support their argument that Plaintiffs alleged negligence is a complete bar to recovery. In
Wilson
the First Circuit stated, “contributory negligence can be a complete defense when a jury finds that the plaintiffs own negligence was the sole proximate cause of the injuries.” 150 F.3d at 11. Defendants’ argument fails for two reasons. First, it is far from clear that Plaintiff was negligent and that her negligence was the sole cause of her injuries. Second, we find the First Circuit’s argument unpersuasive. The First Circuit’s analysis confuses the concepts of contributory negligence and proximate causation. In order to reach the issue of contributory negligence, a plaintiff must first establish a
prima facie
case of the defendant’s negligence. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 463 (1965) (defining contributory negligence as negligence that
combined
with the defendant’s negligence causes the plaintiffs harm). The
prima facie
case must include evidence that the defendant’s breach proximately caused the plaintiffs injuries. Restatement (Third) of Torts § 6 cmt. b (2005). Where the evidence indicates that the plaintiffs own negligence was sole proximate cause of the plaintiffs injuries, then the plaintiff cannot establish a
prima facie
case.
See id.
In such cases, the plaintiff does not lose because of his or her contributory negligence but rather because the defendant was not negligent.
b. The Primary Duty Rule
In contrast to comparative negligence, the primary duty rule provides ship owners with a complete defense against Jones Act and unseaworthiness claims. “The primary duty rule provides that a ship’s officer may not recover against his employer for negligence or unseaworthiness when there is no other cause of the officer’s injuries other than the officer’s breach of his consciously assumed duty to maintain safe conditions aboard the vessel.”
Wilson,
150 F.3d at 11 (citing
Walker v. Lykes Bros. S.S. Co.,
193 F.2d 772, 773 (2d Cir.1952)). “[A]n instruction on the primary duty rule must be given if the evidence establishes a genuine issue of controversy as to whether [the plaintiff] owed a duty to the defendants, whether he breached the duty, and whether the breach was the
sole
proximate cause of his injury.”
Id.
(emphasis in original). “[T]he primary duty rule does not bar recovery where the plaintiff breached his duty but the ship’s owner was also independently at fault.”
Id.
In such cases, the jury must apply the doctrine of comparative negligence.
See id.
The primary duty rule has no place in this case. In order for the pri
mary duty doctrine to apply, the defendant must offer evidence that the Plaintiff “consciously assumed [the] duty to maintain safe conditions aboard the vessel.”
Wilson,
150 F.3d at 11. There is absolutely no evidence that Plaintiff consciously assumed any such duty.
See Ribitzki,
111 F.3d at 665-666 (“[T]he rule only applies to a knowing violation of a duty consciously assumed as a term of employment.”);
cf. Malefant v. Beatty St. Props., Inc.,
328 F.Supp.2d 668 (S.D.Tex.2004) (holding that the primary duty rule precluded recovery where the plaintiff slipped because of missing nonskid tape, which it was the plaintiffs duty to insure was in place). Therefore, the primary duty rule does not make summary judgment proper in this case.
In summary, the district court erred in granting summary judgment because Plaintiff has offered sufficient evidence to create a genuine issues as to all elements of Plaintiffs unseaworthiness and Jones Act claims. Additionally, neither contributory negligence nor the primary duty rule render summary judgment proper in this case because the doctrine of contributory negligence does not apply under maritime law and because the primary duty doctrine does not apply on the facts of this case.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Plaintiffs unseaworthiness and Jones Act claims and REMAND for trial.