Randy Doe v ONMS
Plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant alleging that Defendant's negligence and the unseaworthiness of their vessel caused his injuries.
Plaintiff worked as a crewmember on the M/V David Z. Norton. On June 9, 2006, Plaintiff was was returning from shore leave and reporting back to the vessel at Calcite Harbor. While riding a bicycle on the dock, the plaintiff slipped on loose gravel and injured his clavicle. He was deemed unfit to work for over a year, and received maintenance and cure.
The parties agreed that the Plaintiff sustained his injury on a third-party owned dock where the ship was moored.
The Defendant moved for summary judgment, contending it should be granted because: (1) a claim for unseaworthiness only applied to a vessel and its appurtenances, not a dock; and (2) the Defendant employer did not owe the Plaintiff a legal duty to maintain the dock to support a negligence cause of action.
On April 1, 2009, Magistrate Judge Binder issued a recommendation that the Court grant the employer's motions for summary judgment.
Issue: Whether the Court will follow the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and grant the Defendant's motion for summary judgment for (1) unseaworthiness and (2) negligence.
Whether the Court will follow the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and grant the Defendant's motion for summary judgment for (1) unseaworthiness and (2) negligence.
First, the Plaintiff did not dispute the magistrate judge's recommendation to grant summary judgment in favor of the Defendant's with respect to the unseaworthiness claim. Thus, this Court agreed with the magistrate judge, and granted summary judgment in the Defendant's favor.
Regarding the negligence claim, the Court looked at whether the Plaintiff established that he was a seaman, acting in the course of his employment when the injury occurred, and that the Defendant employer had a part in causing the injury.
The record showed that the Defendant and O-N Mineral (the third-party dock owner) had a contractual relationship. In addition, the same company that owned ONMS also owned O-N Minerals. Thus, the common control of enterprises by a single entity supported the conclusion that the Defenadant's employees could use O-N Mineral's property for access to the vessel. The Court concluded that there was a connection to ONMS and the Plaintiff's injury. Therefore, the Employer's motion for summary judgment for the negligence claim was denied.
A motion for summary judgment indicates that there are no issues of material fact to be resolved. Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56(c), a court must review pleadings, depositions, interrogatories, admissions and all other documents. If there is any indication there are genuine issues of material fact to be resolved, summary judgment will be denied.
A fact is "material" if its resolution would affect the outcome of the lawsuit.
The party who brings the summary judgment motion has the initial burden of informing the district court of the basis for its motion. The party opposing the motion must make an affirmative showing with evidence to defeat the motion. However, the Court will view the evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party.
Steve Gordon
http://www.offshoreinjuries.com
<< PREVNEXT >>
