Published: January 11, 2013
By: Frederick B. Goldsmith
In Harrington v. Atlantic Sounding Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2988 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2013), Brooklyn-based U.S. District Judge Nina Gershon found Atlantic Sounding Co., Inc. and Weeks Marine, Inc. negligent under the Jones Act and the tug M/V CANDACE unseaworthy under the general maritime law. She found no contributory negligence. She awarded Frederick J. Harrington Jr., 52 at the time of the accident, $478,948 in past lost wages and loss of future earning capacity, $500,000 for past pain and suffering, and $700,000 for future pain and suffering.
The accident occurred on April 10, 2005, while the CANDACE was offshore Panama City, Florida, and its crew was moving a submerged pipeline. Before the crew could move the pipeline, though, it had to lift the anchors attached to the ends of the pipeline, a process called “anchor pulling” or “line pulling.” The court discussed how, to “lift the anchor, a tugboat is required to position itself near a buoy, floating on the surface of the water, which is connected by a pennant wire to the anchor on the floor of the ocean.”
Judge Gershon was persuaded by Harrington’s maritime expert, Mitchell Stoller, who testified that the tug should have been positioned to minimize vessel movement during the operation, which movement could cause the crewmen working on the deck “to get jerked or lose their balance or [get] hurt.” The court described how the accident occurred, as follows:
“As plaintiff and [another crewman] began the process of retrieving and lifting the line anchor, plaintiff was tasked with using the boat hook to capture the pennant wire, while [the other crewman] held the winch cable and hook. [The tug’s First Mate] had maneuvered the boat so that it was abeam to the sea, and therefore the boat was rolling back and forth. The rolling, combined with the wet stainless steel deck and the open stern, left plaintiff standing in an awkward position. After plaintiff captured the pennant wire and pulled the buoy toward the boat, he was crouched in a wide stance, in order to maintain his footing while leaning forward to retrieve the pennant wire’s eyelet. After retrieving the pennant wire, while attempting to connect it to the trip hook, the boat moved out of position, causing the pennant wire to go taut, which twisted plaintiff’s back causing the injury in question. Nevertheless, because there was slack in the winch cable, plaintiff was able to make the connection with the trip hook and successfully complete the task.”
Judge Gershon found the defendants negligent because the First Mate failed to ensure Harrington was in a position to perform the task safely and failed to maintain the tug in a proper position. The judge found the M/V CANDACE unseaworthy because the entire crew “had very limited experience pulling line anchors through floating buoys on a tug with an open stern,” and that the First Mate, who was at the wheel, “had none.” Further, the crew was “working on a brand new vessel unlike any that defendants had previously launched and which was designed for a task different from that in which the three were engaged.” Also, “defendants provided no training, no assessment of the risks, and provided no instruction on how the task might be performed safely or how plaintiff might position himself while attempting to pull an anchor without a stern on which to brace himself. Finally, and most importantly, defendants failed to train [the First Mate] on how best to position, and keep in position, the tug while plaintiff was pulling the anchors.”
A neurosurgeon diagnosed Harrington with a herniated lumbar disc and right foot drop, that was a result of a severely compressed nerve in his lower back. Harrington underwent two surgeries: An L4-L5 diskectomy, followed by an L4-L5 fusion. The fusion involved removal of the spinal disc and implantation of a carbon-fiber cage, fastened with screws to the bone above and below the disc space.
Judge Gershon determined Harrington’s loss of enjoyment of life was significant. She found he “can no longer do any of the activities that he did prior to the injury, including fishing, maintenance of his home, walking on the beach, scuba diving, or riding a bike. In addition, because of his limitations regarding sitting and walking, plaintiff is substantially confined to his home and has gained a significant amount of weight. Plaintiff attempted to take computer classes, so that he would be able to work a computer, but was unable to take the class because he could not sit for the required period of time.”
Published: January 4, 2013
By: Frederick B. Goldsmith
Jeffrey Polek, a newly-licensed engineer aboard Grand River Navigation Co., Inc.’s M/V MANISTEE, reported to the U.S. Coast Guard a fracture in the vessel’s side shell, after his reports of the fracture to company personnel were shrugged off. A Michigan federal court jury decided Grand River “unlawfully terminated Plaintiff’s employment because of his good faith report of the hull fracture to the Coast Guard, and further found that Defendant’s retaliatory conduct toward Plaintiff merited an award of punitive damages to punish Defendant for its wrongful conduct.” In Polek v. Grand River Navigation, 872 F. Supp. 2d 582 (E.D. Mich. 2012), the jury awarded Polek $1,000 in statutory damages, $33,500 in compensatory damages, and another $100,000 in punitive damages. In awarding punitive damages, the jury found, and the federal district court agreed, the vessel owner’s conduct was unreasonable and reprehensible.
At trial, Grand River downplayed the severity of the hull fracture. The Court found, however:
“…there was evidence that the fracture was below the waterline when the vessel was in a loaded configuration and was the type of damage about which the Coast Guard expected to be notified. Both Captain Brezinski and first mate George Bouhall testified at trial that they were admonished by the Coast Guard for not reporting the hull fracture. While Plaintiff acknowledges that Defendant is correct in observing that it was not ‘cited’ by the Coast Guard, Plaintiff notes that the Coast Guard still issued a Form CG 835 which is a directive to effectuate repairs in a specified period of time—here, immediately upon the vessel’s return to Cleveland.”
The Court also found that Polek repeatedly expressed his “concern not only for his own safety, but the safety of his fellow shipmates,” and that Grand River “disregarded his legitimate concerns.”
Polek presented evidence at trial showing that Grand River’s conduct in concealing facts from the Coast Guard was not an isolated occurrence. In response to Polek’s expression of “legitimate and bonafide safety concerns,” Grand River personnel labeled Polek a “potential liability to the company,” called his concerns the “non-sensical ravings of a junior engineer,” and branded him a “weenie.”
In addition to assessing punitive damages, to emphasize their feelings about Grand River’s conduct, the jury returned a note along with their verdict which stated:
“On [b]ehalf of the jury we wish to extend one additional comment to Grand River Navigation Co., Inc. After extensive discussion regarding the content of the case we collectively recommend that the company invest the resources necessary to improve the management skills of their organization’s structure.”
* * *
The Seaman’s Protection Act, enacted by the U.S. Congress in 2010, codified at 46 U.S. Code § 2114, formally entitled, “Protection of seamen against discrimination,” provides as follows:
(1) A person may not discharge or in any manner discriminate against a seaman because—
(A) the seaman in good faith has reported or is about to report to the Coast Guard or other appropriate Federal agency or department that the seaman believes that a violation of a maritime safety law or regulation prescribed under that law or regulation has occurred;
(B) the seaman has refused to perform duties ordered by the seaman’s employer because the seaman has a reasonable apprehension or expectation that performing such duties would result in serious injury to the seaman, other seamen, or the public;
(C) the seaman testified in a proceeding brought to enforce a maritime safety law or regulation prescribed under that law;
(D) the seaman notified, or attempted to notify, the vessel owner or the Secretary of a work-related personal injury or work-related illness of a seaman;
(E) the seaman cooperated with a safety investigation by the Secretary or the National Transportation Safety Board;
(F) the seaman furnished information to the Secretary, the National Transportation Safety Board, or any other public official as to the facts relating to any marine casualty resulting in injury or death to an individual or damage to property occurring in connection with vessel transportation; or
(G) the seaman accurately reported hours of duty under this part.
(2) The circumstances causing a seaman’s apprehension of serious injury under paragraph (1)(B) must be of such a nature that a reasonable person, under similar circumstances, would conclude that there is a real danger of an injury or serious impairment of health resulting from the performance of duties as ordered by the seaman’s employer.
(3) To qualify for protection against the seaman’s employer under paragraph (1)(B), the employee must have sought from the employer, and been unable to obtain, correction of the unsafe condition.
(b) A seaman alleging discharge or discrimination in violation of subsection (a) of this section, or another person at the seaman’s request, may file a complaint with respect to such allegation in the same manner as a complaint may be filed under subsection (b) of section 31105 of title 49. Such complaint shall be subject to the procedures, requirements, and rights described in that section, including with respect to the right to file an objection, the right of a person to file for a petition for review under subsection (c) of that section, and the requirement to bring a civil action under subsection (d) of that section.
Published: December 7, 2012
By: Frederick B. Goldsmith
In Laborde v. SGS North America, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170544 (M.D. La. Nov. 29, 2012), Brent Laborde sued his employer, SGS, as a seaman under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 30104, for personal injuries he sustained while moving a heavy coil of rope aboard the M/V Helen G, which was also owned, operated, and maintained by SGS. He claimed SGS was negligent and the M/V Helen G was unseaworthy. SGS filed a motion for partial summary judgment, asking the federal trial court to dismiss Laborde’s unseaworthiness claim. In his opinion denying SGS’s motion, Judge James J. Brady of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana reviewed the law on the vessel owner’s warranty of seaworthiness which it owes its crewmembers, and what can constitute an “unseaworthy” condition aboard a vessel.
Citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Mitchell v. Trawler Racer, Inc., 362 U.S. 539, 550, (1960), the Baton Rouge-based court discussed how a shipowner’s warranty of seaworthiness encompasses a duty to “furnish a vessel and appurtenances reasonably fit for their intended use.” Other courts have explained this duty as requiring the vessel owner to “provide a vessel, including her equipment and crew, which is reasonably fit and safe for the purpose for which it is to be used.” Boudreaux v. United States, 280 F.3d 461, 468 (5th Cir. 2002). Unseaworthiness can also be “manifested by an unsafe method of work, such as the failure by a shipowner to provide adequate equipment for the performance of an assigned task.” Johnson v. Offshore Express, Inc., 845 F.2d 1347, 1354-1355 (5th Cir. 1988).
In Usner v. Luckenbach, 400 U.S. 494, 498 (1971), the Supreme Court held that “unseaworthiness is a condition, and how that condition came into being – whether by negligence or otherwise – is quite irrelevant to the owner’s liability for personal injuries resulting from it.”
To win an unseaworthiness claim, the seaman plaintiff must also establish causation, that is, prove that the “unseaworthy condition played a substantial part in bringing about or actually causing the injury and that the injury was either a direct result or a reasonably probable consequence of the unseaworthiness.” Johnson v. Offshore Express, Inc., 845 F.2d at 1354.
Under the general maritime law, there is a difference between “transitory unseaworthiness,” which subjects a vessel owner to liability, and “instant unseaworthiness,” caused by a single, unforeseeable act of operational negligence, which does not. A transitory unseaworthy condition, like a permanent defect, will render a ship unseaworthy.
Published: December 3, 2012
By: Frederick B. Goldsmith
The New York Court of Appeals on November 29, 2012, resolved the issue of whether the State of New York “can be held liable to individuals who were injured and the personal representatives of those who lost their lives due to the tragic capsizing of a public vessel — the Ethan Allen.” The court, in Metz v. State of New York, held “that because the State owes no special duty to these claimants, the claims that the State’s inspectors failed to certify safe passenger capacity on the vessel must be dismissed.”
Forty-seven mostly elderly passengers were aboard the tour boat “Ethan Allen” on October 2, 2005, for what was to be a one-hour cruise to view foliage along Lake George. The boat suddenly capsized and sank in 70-feet deep waters. Twenty passengers died. Several others were injured. As a “public vessel,” the Ethan Allen was subject to yearly state inspections, following which an inspector appointed by the Commissioner of the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation would issue a certificate indicating the vessel’s maximum passenger capacity. When the Ethan Allen sank, it was carrying 47 passengers and one crewmember, thus within the 48-passenger limit set forth in its state-issued certificate of inspection.
New York’s “Navigation Law” requires a certificate of inspection to operate a a public vessel upon the state’s waters. A state inspector must carefully examine the vessel and its equipment and only if satisfied that the vessel is in all respects safe and conforms to the requirements of the Navigation Law execute the certificate of inspection. The state inspector is also required to set forth in the certificate of inspection the number of passengers the vessel can safely transport and the number of crewmembers necessary to safely operate the vessel.
The Ethan Allen was built in 1964 and first inspected by the U.S. Coast Guard. The vessel’s last U.S. Coast Guard-issued certificate of inspection stated its maximum passenger capacity was 48 persons and that two crewmembers were required to be aboard. Testimony in the case indicated that when New York took over issuing the Ethan Allen’s certificate of inspection in 1979, until the date of the accident, the boat’s passenger capacity remained at 48. The boat’s passenger capacity remained unchanged even though its owners modified it in 1989 by replacing its canvas canopy with a heavier one made of wood. Several state inspectors testified they did not independently verify the vessel’s passenger capacity by conducting a stability test, but rather relied on the number certified from the previous year. One inspector agreed the passenger capacity figure was simply “rubber stamped,” based on the previously-issued capacity figure from the prior certificate of inspection. Another inspector referred to the Coast Guard COI’s passenger capacity number as “gospel.”
The New York Court of Appeals agreed with the plaintiffs that “[t]he 48-passenger limit certified by the State inspectors was, however, much higher than the level at which the vessel could safely be operated. Notably, since this accident, the State has increased the average weight per passenger from 140 pounds — an approximation apparently adopted in the 1950s and utilized by the Coast Guard — to 174 pounds.” The plaintiffs sued the State of New York, claiming it was “negligent in certifying an unsafe passenger capacity, resulting from the use of outdated passenger weight criteria, and in failing to require a new stability assessment after the vessel had been significantly modified.” In response, the state raised several affirmative defenses, including governmental immunity, which was the primary focus of the appeal to the New York Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals wrote that its prior decisions had established that “claimants must first establish the existence of a special duty owed to them by the State before it becomes necessary to address whether the State can rely upon the defense of governmental immunity,” and that “it is well settled that the State ‘is not liable for the negligent performance of a governmental function unless there existed ‘a special duty to the injured person, in contrast to a general duty owed to the public.'”
The Court of Appeals held the inspections of the Ethan Allen were “governmental functions” and that “in the absence of some special relationship creating a duty to exercise care for the benefit of particular individuals, liability may not be imposed on a municipality for failure to enforce a statute or regulation.” The Court held that while “[t]he statutory scheme at issue here does require inspectors to issue a certificate of inspection indicating that the vessel is safe and, specifically, certifying the number of passengers the vessel can safely transport…these statutory obligations do not create a special duty of care owed by the State to particular passengers.” Further, the court found that “recognizing a private right of action would be incompatible with the legislative design. The Navigation Law does not provide for governmental tort liability, but instead for fines and criminal penalties to be imposed upon vessel owners and operators.” The court found that when the state leglislature amended the Navigation Law in response to the Ethan Allen tragedy, “it imposed additional safety standards and enhanced certain penalties, but still did not provide for a private right of action.” Thus, the court wrote, “[u]nder these circumstances, we can infer that the Legislature has determined that these penalties are the best way to enforce violations of the Navigation Law and that the failure to establish a private right of action against the State was deliberate.”
The court concluded: “Although the law is clear, the upshot is that, regardless of any negligence on the part of the State, the victims of this disastrous wreck are essentially left without an adequate remedy. The Legislature currently has a proposal before it to require public vessels to carry marine protection and indemnity insurance (2011 NY Assembly Bill A6699). We note that such a requirement — had it existed — might have been able to provide a modicum of relief here.”
Published: November 27, 2012
By: Frederick B. Goldsmith
In recent years, the oil and gas industry has designed, built, and installed in the Gulf of Mexico hugely expensive and technologically complex drilling and production structures capable of extracting hydrocarbons from beneath the seabed in the Gulf’s deep waters. In shallower waters, the industry can use jack-up drilling rigs, which, since they have hulls and other vessel-like features, and are comparatively easy to relocate from well to well, courts have repeatedly held are “vessels in navigation” for purposes of admiralty and maritime law. If a crewman of a “vessel in navigation” is injured, then he or she is generally entitled to bring personal injury claims as a “seaman” under the federal Jones Act (for negligence) and under the general maritime law (or federal common law) for unseaworthiness and maintenance and cure. But, if the structure is not a “vessel in navigation,” then the worker injured while working on it cannot claim to be a crewman of a “vessel in navigation” and entitled to the remedies reserved to seamen.
Recently, a federal district court in Louisiana held that a massive “floating production drilling quarters” called the Thunder Horse, operated by BP, is not a “vessel in navigation,” and, thus, that the claimant, a worker aboard the structure, could not be a seaman as to that structure, and thus that he was not entitled to pursue a seaman’s personal injury claims, noted above. In Washington v. BP America, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164371 (W.D. La. Nov. 16, 2012), the court focused on how the Thunder Horse was, with reference to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Stewart v. Dutra Construction Co., not “practically capable of maritime transportation, regardless of its primary purpose or state of transit at a particular moment.” In Stewart, the Supreme Court concluded, “[t]he question remains in all cases whether the watercraft’s use as a means of transportation on water is a practical possibility or merely a theoretical one.” In Washington v. BP America, Inc., the court decided the Thunder Horse, like another deep water drilling and production structure at work in the Gulf of Mexico, a “spar” called Red Hawk, is a “work platform,” not a “vessel.”
The key aspects of the Thunder Horse which render it a “work platform,” and not a “vessel,” the court found, are:
Having found the Thunder Horse is not a “vessel,” the Louisiana federal court also concluded the plaintiff in the case, Terrance Washington, who was working as a cook, and who claimed he was injured after he slipped and fell on a walkway on the structure, could not be a seaman under the Jones Act as to the Thunder Horse, and therefore he was not entitled to pursue a seaman’s personal injury claims against BP.