Dave Vickers, as owner of the M/V Wakesetter for exoneration from or limitation of liability, No. 6:2017cv00302 - Document 94 (E.D. Okla. 2019)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kimberly E. West denying 53 Motion to Realign Parties. (adw, Deputy Clerk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Dave Vickers, as owner of the M/V Wakesetter for exoneration from or limitation of liability Doc. 94 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT AND PETITION OF DAVE VICKERS, AS OWNER OF THE M/V WAKESETTER FOR EXONERATION FROM OR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CIV-17-302-KEW OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion to Realign Parties (Docket Entry #53). Petitioner asserts that the parties should be realigned in this action to reflect Claimant’s initial burden of proof to establish Petitioner’s liability for the alleged injuries suffered by Claimant. Effectively, Petitioner seeks to have Claimant designated as the “Plaintiff” and Petitioner as the “Defendant” in the trial of this case. This Court has, by prior Opinion and Order, established that Claimant is not entitled limitation/exoneration action. to a jury trial See Docket Entry #80. in this Since this matter will be tried to the Court, no real purpose is served by realigning the parties such that a plaintiff and defendant are identified. The action was appropriately filed under the Limitation of Liability Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30501 et seq., with the vessel and owner of the vessel identified. Claims were solicited and Claimant filed an appropriate claim against the vessel. No further designation of the parties is necessary. Clarifying the burden of proof at trial may assist the parties. Both litigants have referenced the general progression of Dockets.Justia.com the respective burdens. Claimant “‘bears the initial burden of proving negligence,’. . . .” In re Nagler, 246 F.Supp.3d 648, 656 (E.D.N.Y. 2017)(citations omitted). proved includes the “acts of The negligence which must be negligence or conditions of unseaworthiness [which] caused the accident.” In re Aramark Sports and Entertainment Serv., LLC, 831 F.3d 1264, 1273 (10th Cir. 2016)(citations omitted). ends and the exonerating district the owner If no negligence is shown, “the inquiry court from will typically liability.” Id. issue If an order Claimant demonstrates negligence, “the burden shifts to the owner to show lack of privity or knowledge. . . . If the owner meets this burden, the court caps the owner’s liability at the value of the vessel and pending freight, resolves the claims, and apportions the fund.” Id. If the owner does not establish a lack of privity or knowledge, “the court denies the limitation petition and the owner is fully liable as it would have been absent the Limitation Act.” Id. The bench trial of this action will proceed in this fashion. The burden of proof will initially rest with Claimant, then shift to Petitioner if negligence is shown. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Realign Parties (Docket Entry #53) is hereby DENIED. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED this 27th day of February, 2019. ______________________________ KIMBERLY E. WEST UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 3
]]>
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.
