Stanley v. Starfleet Marine Transportation, Inc., et al

Filing 66

ORDER AND REASONS denying 45 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Carl Barbier on 7/31/2018. (Reference: All cases)(cg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ROY STANLEY, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 16-13753

STARFLEET MARINE
TRANSPORTATION, INC. ET AL.

SECTION: “J”(1)

ORDER & REASONS
NATURE OF MOTION AND RELIEF REQUESTED
Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment (Rec. Doc. 45) filed by
Defendant Starfleet Marine Transportation, Inc., the owner and operator of M/V MS.
LINDA LEE. Plaintiffs filed their opposition (Rec. Doc. 49) and Defendant replied
(Rec. Doc. 54). Having considered the Motion, the legal memoranda, and the
applicable law, the Court finds that the Motion should be DENIED.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Plaintiffs in this case are offshore platform operators, Roy Stanley and
Mitchell Mouton, who were injured as passengers aboard the M/V MS. LINDA LEE
while it was transporting them to shore. (Rec. Doc. 1 at 2). On March 23, 2014,
Plaintiffs boarded the LINDA LEE via a personnel basket. At boarding the gulf was
rough enough for waves to spill water over the LINDA LEE’s gunwales and onto the
deck. (Rec. Doc. 45-4 at 8). After coming aboard, Mr. Mouton went into the
wheelhouse to ask about the rough seas. He spoke with the captain of the LINDA
1

LEE, Jamie Brown. According to Mr. Mouton, Capt. Brown informed him that they
were in for bad weather, due to a “northerner” blowing cold air onto the gulf. (Rec.
Doc. 45-5 at 8). The Captain allegedly stated “he was going to run into shallow water
to avoid being so far out whenever high winds did come through.” Capt. Brown
disputes this account and has testified that he was not concerned with the waves
Plaintiffs witnessed as they boarded, because he believed the cold front and the
resulting rough seas would not arrive until much later, as forecasted in the National
Weather Service High Seas Report. (Rec. Doc. 49-2 at 11). *
On the trip back Plaintiffs became tired and went into the cabin. They found
empty rows of chairs—arranged as they would be on a commercial airliner—and lay
down across multiple chairs. Plaintiffs deny being given any safety instruction
regarding how to properly ride in the vessel and deny they were ever told to not lie
down in this manner. (Rec. Docs. 45-4 at 13, 45-5 at 9). Plaintiffs fell asleep and were
awoken as their bodies were thrown into the air as the LINDA LEE hit a large wave.
Plaintiffs fell down to the floor of the cabin before being thrown into the air again by
another sudden wave. (Rec. Doc. 45-5 at 9). Plaintiffs allege they suffered various
injuries from being thrown about the cabin. (Rec. Doc. 1).
Plaintiffs filed suit against Starfleet Marine Transportation, Inc., the owneroperator of the LINDA LEE on August 10, 2016. Plaintiffs claim in their amended
complaint that their injuries were caused by a number of unreasonable actions or
inactions by the Defendant, but primarily argue that it was unreasonable for Capt.
The Court does not make credibility determinations at this stage and weighs the evidence in the
nonmovants’ favor.
*

2

Brown to take the course he did, at the speed he did, in rough seas, given the LINDA
LEE’s capabilities. Moreover, Plaintiffs argue that it was unreasonable for Defendant
not to provide passengers with any safety procedures or equipment. (Rec. Doc. 18 at
2). Defendant then filed the Motion that is before this Court. The Court will consider
it on the briefs and without oral argument.
LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate when “the pleadings, the discovery and
disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as
to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)); Little
v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994). When assessing whether a
dispute as to any material fact exists, a court considers “all of the evidence in the
record but refrains from making credibility determinations or weighing the evidence.”
Delta & Pine Land Co. v. Nationwide Agribusiness Ins. Co., 530 F.3d 395, 398 (5th
Cir. 2008). All reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the nonmoving party, but
a party cannot defeat summary judgment with conclusory allegations or
unsubstantiated assertions. Little, 37 F.3d at 1075. A court ultimately must be
satisfied that “a reasonable jury could not return a verdict for the nonmoving party.”
Delta, 530 F.3d at 399.
If the dispositive issue is one on which the moving party will bear the burden
of proof at trial, the moving party “must come forward with evidence which would
‘entitle it to a directed verdict if the evidence went uncontroverted at trial.’” Int’l

3

Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally’s, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 1264-65 (5th Cir. 1991). The nonmoving
party can then defeat the motion by either countering with sufficient evidence of its
own, or “showing that the moving party’s evidence is so sheer that it may not
persuade the reasonable fact-finder to return a verdict in favor of the moving party.”
Id. at 1265.
DISCUSSION
I.

‘ACT OF GOD’ AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendant argues that it is not liable for the injuries of Plaintiffs, because the
waves that struck the LINDA LEE were acts of God, over which no one has control.
(Rec. Doc. 45-1 at 6-7). Defendant cites a number of cases in which courts have
recognized that vessel owners are not responsible for injuries resulting from so-called
“rogue waves.” See Irwin v. United States, 236 F.2d 774, 776 (2d Cir. 1956) (finding
that “[e]ven the United States is not master of the sea and the wind” and is therefore
not liable for “an unpredictable ‘freak swell’”). However, in none of the cases cited by
Defendant does a court find it appropriate to grant summary judgment to a defendant
on such a theory. See, e.g., In re Cornfield, 365 F.Supp. 2d 271, 280 (E.D.N.Y. 2004),
aff'd sub nom. Cornfield v. Cornfield, 156 Fed. Appx. 343 (2d Cir. 2005) (finding after
a trial that plaintiff had failed to prove negligence, because the court found weather
not to be prohibitive except for “rogue wave conditions”). Instead, Courts tend to
reserve determination of the cause of a plaintiff’s injuries—whether it be negligence
or an unpredictable force of nature—for the trier of fact. See, e.g., Petition of Catalina
Cruises, Inc., 930 F.Supp. 1384, 1386 (C.D. Cal. 1996) (recognizing that a trial was

4

necessary to determine whether defendant’s conduct was reasonable, defendant’s
argument that a “rogue wave” was an unpredictable act of God notwithstanding).
Therefore, the Court finds summary judgment on this ground improper.
II.

SUFFICIENCY OF PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENCE

Defendant goes onto argue that summary judgment is appropriate simply
because Plaintiffs cannot meet their burden of proof. Essentially, Defendant argues
that because the Plaintiffs were asleep in the cabin at the time, they can’t offer any
testimony as to Capt. Brown’s handling of the vessel when the waves struck the
LINDA LEE. Defendant argues Plaintiffs also lack any special knowledge of maritime
procedures, and have not hired an expert, so Plaintiffs lack any means to challenge
the reasonableness of Capt. Brown’s operations. (Rec. Doc. 45-1 at 8).
Plaintiffs point out that there was evidence the weather was worsening before
the LINDA LEE left the platform. (Rec. Doc. 49 at 4). Specifically, one of the Plaintiffs
avers that the captain informed him that the weather was caused by an incoming
cold front and that he would take action to protect the vessel by heading for “shallow
water.” (Rec. Doc. 45-5 at 8). This contradicts Capt. Brown’s assertion that he set out
without fear of the cold front because he expected it much later. (Rec. Doc. 49-2 at
11). This is a dispute as to a material fact that should be weighed after trial. Likewise,
Plaintiffs and Capt. Brown dispute whether they were given an orientation on how
to properly sit in their seats. (Rec. Doc. 49 at 4). Defendant argues that even accepting
Plaintiffs’ version (as the Court must), “Plaintiffs offer no evidence that had they been
told to sit down” upright “they would have done so.” (Rec. Doc. 54 at 6). However, “[a]t

5

the summary judgment stage, the defendant cannot speculate how the plaintiff would
have responded to a warning.” Wyler v. Holland Am. Line-USA, Inc., 348 F.Supp. 2d
1206 (W.D. Wash. 2003) (declining summary judgment where defendant ocean liner
made sudden turn to avoid an incoming rogue wave and plaintiff was injured upon
being thrown from her chair). Therefore, the Court finds summary judgment to be
inappropriate.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment (Rec.
Doc. 45) filed by Defendant is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 31st day of July, 2018.

_____________________________

Carl J. Barbier
United States District Judge

6