Automated Summary
Key Facts
George Bates was injured on October 28, 2022, while employed by American Commercial Barge Line, LLC (ACBL) working on the M/V SAFETY GOAL on the Mississippi River. Bates alleged that Marquette Transportation Company, LLC contributed to the supervision of the job and that both ACBL and Marquette were negligent and the vessel was unseaworthy. ACBL and Marquette filed consolidated limitation of liability actions. Marquette sought summary judgment dismissing ACBL's claim, arguing they owed no duty of reasonable care, the assist tug CRISTO SANTO was exonerated as it followed ACBL's direction, and no duty of unseaworthiness existed. The court found genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the CRISTO SANTO contributed to Bates' injuries by failing to fulfill its duties, denying summary judgment on negligence. However, Marquette's motion was granted on the unseaworthiness claim because Bates was not a member of Marquette's vessel crew.
Issues
- Whether Marquette Transportation Company, LLC breached its duty of reasonable care to George Bates, a worker injured during barge operations on the Mississippi River, and whether the assist tug M/V CRISTO SANTO was exonerated from liability for the incident.
- Whether Marquette Transportation Company, LLC owed a duty of unseaworthiness to George Bates, and whether Bates qualified as a crewmember of the MTC 640 barge owned by Marquette.
Holdings
Marquette's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court granted Marquette's Motion for Summary Judgment on liability for any claim of unseaworthiness, as Bates was not a member of the MTC 640. However, the Court denied the Motion regarding negligence, finding genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment because Captain Meche's testimony suggested the CRISTO SANTO contributed to Bates' alleged injuries by failing to fulfill its duties.
Remedies
The court granted Marquette's Motion for Summary Judgment on liability for unseaworthiness claims and denied the motion on negligence claims. The court found genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment on negligence, while it ruled that Bates was not a member of Marquette's vessel crew, thus denying the unseaworthiness claim against Marquette.
Legal Principles
- In maritime negligence cases, assist tugs have a duty to follow the orders of others rather than taking action on their own. An assist tug acting under and in compliance with orders of a third-party pilot cannot be liable for damage unless shown to be guilty of independent negligence. A tug owes a duty to exercise reasonable care and maritime skill as prudent navigators employ in performing similar services.
- The court finds genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the CRISTO SANTO's failure to fulfill its duties contributed to Bates' alleged injuries. A reasonable juror could credit testimony suggesting the tug's conduct caused the barge to gap out and the subsequent accident, precluding summary judgment on the negligence claim.
- The dispute centers on whether the CRISTO SANTO tug breached its duty by failing to maintain contact with the PML 969 barge after Captain Meche instructed it to stop pushing hard. ACBL argues the tug should have maintained contact to prevent the barge from gapping out when deckhands disconnected it, while Marquette contends the tug was properly following instructions to release its hold.
Precedent Name
- Burton v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.
- In re Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. LLC
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
- Aiple Towing Co. v. M/V Lynne E. Quinn
- Barlow v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc.
- Baker, Carver & Morrell Ship Supplies v. Mathiasen Shipping Co.
Cited Statute
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Judge Name
Judge Shelly D. Dick
Passage Text
- Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to ACBL as the nonmovant, the Court finds that genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment. Marquette argues the Court should discredit the portions of Captain Meche's testimony upon which ACBL relies as "contradictory and internally inconsistent." However, the Fifth Circuit has instructed that "choosing which testimony to credit and which to discard" is improper at summary judgment stage.
- In reviewing a party's motion for summary judgment, the Court will grant the motion if (1) there is no genuine issue of material fact, and (2) the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. This determination is made "in the light most favorable to the opposing party."
- Marquette's Motion for Summary Judgment on liability for any claim of unseaworthiness is GRANTED. Marquette's Motion is otherwise DENIED.