at 76. However, there is no evidence as to how or why the cover was not secure. 7 . Of course, this may not be the case. It is possible, for example, that Roulston or some other worker had occasion to remove the manhole cover and that it had been improperly replaced. Again, the pleadings do not indicate whether or not the manhole cover may have been utilized or otherwise disturbed on the day in question prior to the plaintiff's accident. 8 .The Court notes that even if Yazoo River could have discovered the loose manhole cover through a reasonable inspection, Roulston will not necessarily prevail on his negligence claim as an employer’s burden is not so onerous under the Jones Act that it becomes an insurer against all harm suffered by its workers. See Gautreaux, 107 F.3d at 338 (<HOLDING>). However, "the test of a jury case is simply
holding that premises owner had duty to use degree of care in performing activities that owner of ordinary prudence would use under same or similar circumstances holding that seamen are also held to a standard of ordinary prudence to avoid injury holding employers to an ordinary prudence standard of care holding that due regard describes a standard between ordinary care and recklessness holding that it is inconsistent with ordinary business care and prudence to rely unquestioningly on advice about an extended deadline