Norman v. Odyssea Marine, Inc.

Filing 65

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 52 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 12/9/14. (jrc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
RICHARD ARTHUR NORMAN

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 13-6690

ODYSSEA MARINE, INC.

SECTION: "A" (4)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment (Rec. Doc. 52) filed by
defendants Odyssea Vessels, Inc. and Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. Plaintiff
Richard Norman opposes the motion. The motion, noticed for submission on November 5,
2014, is before the Court on the briefs without oral argument.1 For the reasons that follow,
the motion is DENIED.
I.

Background
On February 20, 2013, Richard Norman was relief captain for the M/V MR. SAM, an

offshore tugboat owned and operated by Defendants. On that date, Captain Norman was
ascending the ladder that leads to the roof of the wheelhouse deck on the MR. SAM. Norman
fell from the ladder as he attempted to transition from gripping the rungs of the ladder to
gripping the vertical stringers. (Rec. Doc. 59, Opposition at 2). Norman's right hand slipped
from the ladder's outer railing causing him to fall on his buttocks. (UMF # 6). Norman's fall
was about ten feet to the deck below and he sustained a severe injury to his lumbar spine.
Norman's complaint alleges that his injury was caused by Defendants' Jones Act
negligence and the unseaworthiness of the MR. SAM. Norman also makes a claim for

Plaintiff requested oral argument but argument would not be helpful in light of the
issues presented.
1

1

maintenance and cure, along with attorney fees and punitive damages related to that claim.
(Complaint ¶ VIII).
A bench trial is scheduled to commence on August 3, 2015.
Via the instant motion Defendants move for judgment as a matter of law on all causes
of action. Defendants contend that Norman cannot prevail on his claims because this is a
case of pure accident, or alternatively, sole fault of Norman.
II.

Discussion
Summary judgment is appropriate only if "the pleadings, depositions, answers to

interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any," when viewed in
the light most favorable to the non-movant, "show that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact." TIG Ins. Co. v. Sedgwick James, 276 F.3d 754, 759 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986)). A dispute about a material
fact is "genuine" if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the
non-moving party. Id. (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248). The court must draw all justifiable
inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Id. (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255). Once the
moving party has initially shown "that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's cause," Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986), the non-movant
must come forward with "specific facts" showing a genuine factual issue for trial. Id. (citing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio, 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)).
Conclusional allegations and denials, speculation, improbable inferences, unsubstantiated
assertions, and legalistic argumentation do not adequately substitute for specific facts
showing a genuine issue for trial. Id. (citing SEC v. Recile, 10 F.3d 1093, 1097 (5th Cir.
1993)).
Defendants argue generally that the ladder's design was not unusual and not unlike

2

that used on other similar vessels. Defendants submit reports from two experts in support of
these contentions. (Rec. Doc. 52, Defendant's Exhibits A & D).
Norman counters with his own expert report and not surprisingly his expert reaches
contrary conclusions. (Rec. Doc. 59, Norman's Exhibit 9).
In addition to the opinions of their experts, Defendants posit that the vessel was ABS
class certified and had passed a Coast Guard inspection in June 2012. (UMF # 13 & 14). But
the documentation that Defendants provide in conjunction with these inspections mentions
nothing about the ladder in question. Defendants are not entitled to judgment as a matter of
law on the Jones Act and unseaworthiness claims.
Regarding the claim for maintenance and cure, Defendants advise that Odyssea
Marine, Inc. has paid Norman lost wages and maintenance and cure since the time of the
accident through the present day, rendering the maintenance and cure claim essentially a
"placeholder" claim. (UMF # 15 & 16; Rec. Doc. 52-1, Memorandum at 9). Norman has not
opposed this aspect of Defendants' motion so it will be granted.
Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons;
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment (Rec. Doc. 52)
filed by Defendants is GRANTED IN PART as to the claim for maintenance and cure and
DENIED in all other respects.
December 9, 2014
JAY C. ZAINEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3