Lee v. Offshore Logistical & Transports, LLC, No. 2:2015cv02528 - Document 41 (E.D. La. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS granting 23 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 8/24/16. (cg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Lee v. Offshore Logistical & Transports, LLC Doc. 41 U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT COU RT EASTERN D ISTRICT OF LOU ISIAN A ELW OOD LEE, Plain tiff CIVIL ACTION VERSU S N O. 15 -2 5 2 8 OFFSH ORE LOGISTICAL AN D TRAN SPORT L.L.C., D e fe n d an t SECTION : “E” ( 2 ) ORD ER AN D REAS ON S The issue before the Court is whether the Plaintiff will survive a m otion for sum m ary judgm ent on his claim s based on J ones Act n egligence and unseaworthiness under general m aritim e law if he has put forth no com petent sum m ary judgm ent evidence regarding causation. Defendant Offshore Logistical & Transport, LLC filed a m otion for partial sum m ary judgm ent on the issues of J ones Act negligence and unseaworthiness. 1 Plaintiff Elwood Lee opposes the m otion. 2 For the reasons that follow, the m otion for sum m ary judgm ent is GRAN TED . FACTU AL & PROCED U RAL BACKGROU N D This is a m aritim e personal injury case. Plaintiff Elwood Lee (“Plaintiff”) filed a com plaint on J uly 10 , 20 15, pursuant to the J ones Act 3 and general m aritim e law. 4 Plaintiff alleges, while aboard the M/ V BALTY on J uly 20 , 20 14, he “experien ced an accident” on the stern deck resulting in “serious painful injuries” to his knee and other 1 R. Doc. 23. R. Doc. 27. 3 46 U.S.C. § 30 10 4. 4 R. Doc. 1. 2 1 Dockets.Justia.com parts of his body. 5 The parties agree the M/ V BALTY was owned, operated, and/ or controlled by Defendant Offshore Logistical and Transport, LLC (“Defendant”), the Plaintiff was an em ployee of Defen dant at the tim e of the accident, and the Plaintiff was a seam an under the J ones Act at the tim e of the accident. 6 It is undisputed that Plaintiff, as the sen ior captain aboard the M/ V BALTY, was involved in getting “the boat organ ized” and perform ed “generalized m aintenance.”7 It is undisputed Plaintiff was unaware of a defect that gave him “concern about the ability to walk in [the] area” of the alleged injury. 8 Finally, both parties agree there was no non-skid m aterial on the deck of the M/ V BALTY at the tim e of Plaintiff’s injury. 9 The parties, however, dispute whether the lack of non-skid application was negligence or constituted unseaworthiness of the M/ V BALTY. 10 Plaintiff contends Defendant had the duty to ensure there was a non-skid application on the deck, but Defendant asserts that Plaintiff, as captain, bears this duty. Whether the lack of a nonskid application caused Plaintiff’s accident also is disputed. 11 Plaintiff testified at his deposition he does not know what caused the accident. 12 On J uly 12, 20 16, Defendant filed a m otion for partial sum m ary judgm ent seeking the dism issal of Plaintiff’s claim s for dam ages for J ones Act negligence and unseaworthiness under general m aritim e law. According to Defendant, Plaintiff “cannot identify any act of negligence or breach of duty” by Defendant that caused his injury or 5 Id. at ¶¶ III– V. Id.; R. Doc. 23-4 at 1, ¶ 3; R. Doc. 27-1 at 1, ¶ 3. 7 R. Doc. 23-2 at 7. 8 Id. at 20 . 9 Id. at 17– 18. 10 R. Doc. 23-4 at 3, ¶ 14; R. Doc. 27-1 at 2, ¶ 14. 11 R. Doc. 23-4 at 4, ¶¶ 28 – 29; R. Doc. 27-1 at 3, ¶¶ 28– 29. 12 R. Doc. 23-2 at 19. 6 2 “any con dition of the vessel BALTY [that] was not fit for its intended service or was a substantial and proxim ate cause of [Plaintiff’s] knee injury.”13 Defendant seeks dism issal of Plaintiff’s negligence and unseaworthiness claim s with prejudice. 14 SU MMARY J U D GMEN T STAN D ARD Sum m ary judgm ent is appropriate only “if the m ovant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any m aterial fact and the m ovant is entitled to judgm ent as a m atter of law.”15 “An issue is m aterial if its resolution could affect the outcom e of the action.”16 When assessing whether a m aterial factual dispute exists, the Court considers “all of the eviden ce in the record but refrains from m aking credibility determ inations or weighing the evidence.”17 All reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the nonm oving party. 18 There is no genuine issue of m aterial fact if, even viewing the evidence in the light m ost favorable to the nonm oving party, no reasonable trier of fact could find for the nonm oving party, thus entitling the m oving party to judgm ent as a m atter of law. 19 If the dispositive issue is on e on which the m oving party will bear the burden of persuasion at trial, the m oving party “m ust com e forward with evidence which would ‘entitle it to a directed verdict if the evidence went uncontroverted at trial.’”20 If the m oving party fails to carry this burden, the m otion m ust be denied. If the m oving party successfully carries this burden, the burden of production then shifts to the nonm oving party to direct the Court’s attention to som ething in the pleadings or other evidence in the 13 R. Doc. 23-1 at 15. R. Doc. 23 at 1. 15 F ED . R. CIV. P. 56; see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322– 23 (1986). 16 DIRECTV Inc. v. Robson, 420 F.3d 532, 536 (5th Cir. 20 0 5). 17 Delta & Pine Land Co. v. N ationw ide Agribusiness Ins. Co., 530 F.3d 395, 398 (5th Cir. 20 0 8); see also Reeves v . Sanderson Plum bing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 – 51 (20 0 0 ). 18 Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 10 69, 10 75 (5th Cir. 1994). 19 Sm ith v. Am edisy s, Inc., 298 F.3d 434, 440 (5th Cir. 20 0 2). 20 Int’l Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally ’s, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 1263– 64 (5th Cir. 1991) (quoting Golden Rule Ins. Co. v. Lease, 755 F. Supp. 948, 951 (D. Colo. 1991)). 14 3 record setting forth specific facts sufficient to establish that a genuine issue of m aterial fact does indeed exist. 21 If the dispositive issue is one on which the nonm oving party will bear the burden of persuasion at trial, the m oving party m ay satisfy its burden of production by either (1) subm itting affirm ative eviden ce that negates an essential elem ent of the nonm ovant’s claim , or (2) affirm atively dem onstrating there is no evidence in the record to establish an essential elem ent of the nonm ovant’s claim . 22 When proceeding under the first option, if the nonm oving party cannot m uster sufficient eviden ce to dispute the m ovant’s contention that there are no disputed facts, a trial would be useless, and the m oving party is entitled to sum m ary judgm ent as a m atter of law. 23 When, however, the m ovant is proceeding under the second option and is seeking sum m ary judgm ent on the ground that the nonm ovant has no evidence to establish an essential elem en t of the claim , the nonm oving party m ay defeat a m otion for sum m ary judgm ent by “calling the Court’s attention to supporting evidence already in the record that was overlooked or ignored by the m oving party.”24 Under either scen ario, the burden then shifts back to the m ovant to dem onstrate the inadequacy of the evidence relied upon by the nonm ovant. 25 If the m ovant m eets this burden, “the burden of production shifts [back again] to the nonm oving party, who m ust either (1) rehabilitate the evidence attacked in the m oving party’s papers, (2) produce additional eviden ce showing the existen ce of a genuine issue for trial as provided in Rule 56(e), or (3) subm it an affidavit explaining why further 21 Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322– 24 (Brennan , J ., dissenting). Id. at 331– 32. 23 First N ational Bank of Arizona v. Cities Service Co., 391 U.S. 253, 28 8 – 89 (198 0 ); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby , Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249– 50 (1986). 24 Celotex, 477 U.S. at 332– 33. 25 Id. 22 4 discovery is necessary as provided in Rule 56(f).”26 “Sum m ary judgm ent should be granted if the nonm oving party fails to respond in one or m ore of these ways, or if, after the nonm oving party responds, the court determ ines that the m oving party has m et its ultim ate burden of persuading the court that there is no genuine issue of m aterial fact for trial.”27 “[U]nsubstantiated assertions are not com petent sum m ary judgm ent evidence. The party opposing sum m ary judgm ent is required to identify specific evidence in the record and to articulate the precise m anner in which that evidence supports the claim . ‘Rule 56 does not im pose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party’s opposition to sum m ary judgm ent.’”28 LAW AN D AN ALYSIS At trial, Plaintiff will bear the burden of proving the Defendant’s negligence was the legal cause of his injuries and that the unseaworthiness of the M/ V BALTY was the proxim ate cause of his injury. The Defendant has chosen the second m ethod of m eeting its burden as the m ovant on sum m ary judgm ent, affirm atively dem onstrating there is no eviden ce in the record to establish causation. Defendant argues Plaintiff “cannot identify any act of negligence or breach of duty” by Defendant that caused his injury or “any condition of the vessel BALTY [that] was not fit for its intended service or was a substantial and proxim ate cause of [Plaintiff’s] knee injury.”29 To establish the lack of record evidence regarding causation, Defendant relies on excerpts from Plaintiff’s 26 Celotex, 477 U.S. at 332– 33, 333 n.3. Id.; see also First N ational Bank of Arizona, 391 U.S at 289. 28 Ragas v. Tenn. Gas Pipeline Co., 136 F.3d 455, 458 (5th Cir. 1998) (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324; Forsy th v. Barr, 19 F.3d 1527, 1537 (5th Cir. 1994) an d quoting Skotak v. Tenneco Resins, Inc., 953 F.2d 90 9, 915– 16 & n .7 (5th Cir. 1992)). 29 R. Doc. 23-1 at 15. 27 5 deposition. 30 When questioned about the cause of his knee injury, Plaintiff testified “I don’t know what happened. When I turned, I just rem em ber m y leg going the opposite direction. I don’t know if I pivoted the wrong way, I don’t know if I slipped.”31 Additionally, in his deposition, when asked whether his injuries were caused by an unreasonably safe place to work, the Plaintiff answered “[n]o, sir.”32 Plaintiff gave the sam e response when he was asked whether his injuries were caused by Defendant’s failure to properly train or supervise, failure to take precautions for safety, failure to follow a safety requirem ent, failure to provide adequate equipm ent, or failure to provide him with adequate crew m em bers. 33 Plaintiff, as the party opposing sum m ary judgm ent, m ay defeat Defendant’s m otion by “calling the Court’s attention to supporting evidence already in the record that was overlooked or ignored by the m oving party.”34 In this case, Plaintiff m ust identify specific evidence in the record and articulate the precise m anner in which that evidence m akes a sufficient showing of causation for him to survive sum m ary judgm ent on his J ones Act negligen ce and unseaworthiness claim s. I. J ONES ACT N EGLIGENCE The J ones Act provides a seam an with a cause of action against his em ployer for injuries sustain ed as a result of his em ployer’s negligence. 35 A seam an m ay recover dam ages under the J ones Act if his em ployer’s negligence was the legal cause, in whole or 30 R. Doc. 23-2. at 19. 32 Id. at 22– 23. 33 Id. Plaintiff contends when he stated “I don’t know what happened[,]” he was speakin g about the “m echan ism of his in jury.” R. Doc. 27-1 at 2, ¶¶ 25– 26. 34 Celotex, 477 U.S. at 332– 33. 35 Gautreaux v. Scurlock Marine, Inc., 10 7 F.3d 331, 335 (5th Cir. 1997). 31 Id. 6 in part, of his injury. 36 A seam an m ust establish that the Defendant had a duty to provide a reasonably safe place to work, the Defendant breached that duty, and the negligence caused the Plaintiff’s injuries. In this case, even if the Court assum es the Defendant had the duty to m aintain the M/ V BALTY as a safe place to work and the Defendant breached that duty, the Plaintiff fails to point to any evidence in the record regarding causation that was overlooked or ignored by the Defendant. The Plaintiff bears a “featherweight” burden of proof to establish causation for a J ones Act negligence claim , and need only show that his em ployer contributed to his injuries in the slightest degree. 37 Plaintiff, however, m ust at least point to sufficient eviden ce to allow a reasonable inference of causation. 38 Plaintiff attem pts to satisfy his burden regarding causation by pointing to the expert report of Captain J .P. J am ison. 39 Captain J am ison’s report, however, is not accom panied by a sworn affidavit, and is thus not proper sum m ary judgm ent evidence. In the Fifth Circuit, it is a settled rule that “an unsworn affidavit is incom petent to raise a fact issue precluding sum m ary judgm ent.”40 Plaintiff has failed to m eet his burden to establish causation by pointing to com petent sum m ary judgm ent evidence in the record affirm atively dem onstrating that an action of Defendant, in whole or in part, caused his injuries. II. U NSEAWORTHINESS CAUSATION Indepen dent from a J ones Act claim , a seam an m ay claim his injuries were caused by the unseaworthiness of a vessel under general m aritim e law. A vessel is deem ed 36 Id. Gavagan v. United States, 955 F.2d 10 16, 10 19 (5th Cir. 1992). 38 Id. 39 R. Doc. 27 at 2; R. Doc. 27-5. 40 Nissho-Iwai Am . Corp. v. Kline, 845 F.2d 130 0 , 130 6 (5th Cir. 1988 ); see also Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Goel, 274 F.3d 984, 10 0 0 (5th Cir. 20 0 1) (“Unsworn expert reports . . . do not qualify as affidavits or otherwise adm issible evidence for [the] purpose of Rule 56, and m ay be disregarded by the court when 37 7 unseaworthy if a condition of the vessel presents an unreasonable risk of harm to the seam an. 41 The elem ents of an unseaworthiness claim are that the vessel or equipm ent was unreasonably fit for its intended purpose, and 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.”42 This “substantial” causation requirem ent is m ore stringent than the causation requirem ent in a J ones Act negligence claim . 43 In this case, the Plaintiff contends the lack of non-skid application on the deck of the M/ V BALTY ren dered the vessel unseaworthy, and that unseaworthin ess caused the Plaintiff’s injuries. Plaintiff, however, again fails to point to any com peten t sum m ary judgm ent evidence to establish a causal link between the lack of non-skid application and the accident. In fact, in Plaintiff’s deposition, when asked whether there was “anything about the vessel that caused it to be unfit that caused you to be hurt,” the Plaintiff responded “[n]o, sir.”44 The Plaintiff thus fails to m eet his burden of calling to the attention of the Court any com petent sum m ary judgm ent eviden ce in the record that was overlooked or ignored by the m oving party to support his claim that the unseaworthiness of the vessel caused his injuries. The Fifth Circuit has held sum m ary judgm ent cannot be avoided m erely by showing “som e m etaphysical doubt as to the m aterial facts, by conclusory allegations, by unsubstantiated assertions, or by only a scintilla of eviden ce.”45 “Rather, the nonm oving ruling on a m otion for sum m ary judgm ent.”); Duplantis v. Shell Offshore, Inc., 948 F.2d 187, 191 (5th Cir. 1991) (expert letter not con sidered for sum m ary judgm ent purposes where it is un sworn). 41 Park v. Stockhill Boat Rentals, Inc., 492 F.3d 60 0 , 60 4 (5th Cir. 20 0 7). 42 Mitchell v. Traw ler Racer, Inc., 362 U.S. 539, 550 (1960 ). This is a “proxim ate cause” standard. Alverez v. J. Ray McDerm ott & Co., 674 F.2d 10 37, 10 42– 44 (5th Cir. 1982). 43 Alverez, 574 F.2d at 10 43. 44 R. Doc. 23-2 at 23. 45 Boudreaux v. Sw ift Transp. Co., Inc., 40 2 F.3d 536, 540 (5th Cir. 20 0 5) (citations and internal quotation m arks om itted); see also Law rence v . Federal Hom e Loan Mortg. Corp., 80 8 F.3d 670 , 673– 74 (5th Cir. 20 15). 8 party m ust set forth specific facts showing the existence of a genuine issue concerning every essential com ponent of its case.”46 “Testim ony based on conjecture or speculation is insufficient to raise an issue of fact to defeat a sum m ary judgm ent m otion because there is no issue for trial unless there is sufficient evidence favoring a nonm oving party.”47 Defendant has m et its burden of affirm atively dem onstrating there is no eviden ce in the record to establish an essential elem ent of Plaintiff’s claim s against Defendant—the cause of Plaintiff’s injuries. Plaintiff has failed to call the Court’s attention to supporting eviden ce already in the record to establish that the negligence of Defendant or the unseaworthiness of the M/ V BALTY caused or contributed to the Plaintiff’s injury. CON CLU SION For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORD ERED that the m otion for partial sum m ary judgm ent filed by Offshore Logistical & Transport, LLC on the issues of liability for J ones Act negligence and unseaworthiness under general m aritim e law, be and hereby is GRAN TED . N e w Orle a n s , Lo u is ian a, th is 2 4 th d ay o f Au gu s t, 2 0 16 . ________________________________ SU SIE MORGAN U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT J U D GE 46 Boudreaux, 40 2 F.3d at 540 (citations and internal quotation m arks om itted). Ruiz v. W hirlpool, Inc., 12 F.3d 510 , 513 (5th Cir. 1994) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby , Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249– 50 (198 6)). 47 9
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
