James B. Crook v. Hawk Scallop Co., Inc.

Filing 161

Judge Rya W. Zobel: Memorandum of Decision entered denying 112 Motion for New Trial; denying 114 Motion for New Trial; denying 116 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law; denying 118 Motion for Extension of Time; denying 119 Motion for Judg ment as a Matter of Law; denying 121 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law; granting 123 Motion to Alter Judgment; denying 125 Motion for New Trial; denying 127 Motion for New Trial; denying 150 Motion for Extension of Time to File (Urso, Lisa)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-10682-RWZ

JAMES B. CROOK
v.
HAWK SCALLOP CO., INC.,

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
August 30, 2011
ZOBEL, D.J.
Pending before the court are several post-verdict motions in this case. I address
the pending motions seriatim below.
1.

Defendant’s Motion to Alter Judgment or Amend the Judgment or for
Remittitur of the Jury Award (Docket # 123)
It is clear from the testimony at trial, including plaintiff’s own testimony, that the

plaintiff was negligent in two respects. First, he saw oil on the floor of the vessel and
tried to mop it up by using his foot and paper towels as an ad hoc mop. He neglected
to wipe the oil off his shoe before walking elsewhere. Second, he attempted to traverse
the area containing oil while holding a coffee cup and not holding on to any fixtures in a
manner reasonably calculated to ensure safety, even if indeed, the oil was everywhere.
I deem the amount of the contributory negligence to be 50% and thus remit one
half of the amount of the jury verdict ($1.65 million). Alternatively, plaintiff is entitled to
a new trial on the issue of contributory negligence.
2.

Defendant’s Motion for a New Trial Based on the Improper Inclusion of
Medical Expert Testimony (Docket # 112)
DENIED.

3.

Defendant’s Motion for New Trial Based on a Disguised Award of Punitive
Damages (Docket # 114)
DENIED.

4.

Defendant’s Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law on Count I
[Jones Act Negligence] of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Docket # 116)
DENIED.

5.

Defendant’s Motion for Extension of Time to Extend Deadline to File a
Motion For a New Trial Based on the Review of the Notebook (Docket #
118)
DENIED as MOOT.

6.

Defendant’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law on Causation (Docket
# 119)
DENIED.

7.

Defendant’s Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law on Count II
[Unseaworthiness] of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Docket # 121)
DENIED.

8.

Defendant’s Motion for New Trial Based Upon the Improper Admission of
Exhibit No. 34 As Evidence (Docket # 125)
DENIED.

9.

Defendant’s Motion for New Trial Based Upon Inflated Calculation of
Damages (Docket # 127)
DENIED.

10.

Defendant’s Motion to Further Extend the Deadline to File a Motion For a
New Trial Based on the Review of the Notebook (Docket # 150)
DENIED as MOOT.

August 30, 2011
DATE

/s/Rya W. Zobel
RYA W. ZOBEL
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3