Lindsay Don Martell v. Guilbeau Marine Inc., et al.
Before this Court is a motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of defendant, Phil Guilbeau Offshore, against Lindsay Don Martell, plaintiff’s, Jones Act claim.
Lindsay Don Martell was involved in a motor vehicle accident. Martell alleged he was in the service of the M/V Mia Malloy, a vessel owned by Guilbeau.
Martell contended that the M/V Mia Malloy was in port the day because of Hurrican Gustav and that he went ashore to transmit a heavy weather layup plan to the Coast Guard. Guilbeau countered that the accident did not occur while Martell was in the service in the ship but while Martell was away from his duties and attempting to watch a football game.
Martell filed this lawsuit alleging Jones Act negligence, an unseaworthiness claim, and maintenance and cure claim. Martell and Guilbeau agreed to a stipulated dismissal of Martell’s Jones Act and unseaworthiness claims. Martell reserved his maintenance and cure claim. Guilbeau filed this motion seeking dismissal of Martell’s maintenance and cure claim.
Did this Court dismiss Martell’s maintenance and cure claim?
A shipowner has an obligation to pay maintenance and cure to any seaman injured while in service to the ship. This obligation exists regardless of an employer’s fault or a vessel’s unseaworthiness.
This Court found that Martell established a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he was in service of his ship at the time of the accident. Martell, in response to interrogatories, stated that he left the ship to deliver a heavy weather tie-up plan, and that the accident occurred en route to deliver that document.
Although Guilbeau presented evidence that contradicted Martell’s testimony/account of the accident, this Court found that such conflicting evidence created genuine issues of material fact.
Accordingly, this Court denied Guilbeau’s motion for summary judgment.
In order to impose a maintenance and cure obligation upon the vessel owner, the plaintiff must establish that he/she was injured while “in service of the ship”.
This term has been held equivalent to the term “course of employment” used in Jones Act cases. On the outset an automobile accident may not appear to be covered by general maritime law or the Jones Act. However, if the plaintiff is able to show the automobile accident occurred while performing a function of employment, as it relates to the vessel, then the employer may be obligated to pay maintenance and cure.
Steve Gordon
<< PREVNEXT >>
