Barge Owner And Steel Company's Motions To Dismiss Based On Lack Of Subject Matter Jurisdiction...
Barge Owner And Steel Company's Motions To Dismiss Based On Lack Of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Denied Where Longshoreman Conceded That He Suffered No Injury On Navigable Water But Contended That The Admiralty Extension Act Applied Because Of The Longshoreman's Allegations Of Negligence Against The Barge Itself.
RODRIGO MAGANA and MARIA MAGANA, Plaintiffs, v. HAMMER & STEEL, INC., POSTON INDUSTRIAL MAINTENANCE COMPANY, INC. and ROBERT B. MILLER &ASSOCIATES, Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO. G-02-180
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, GALVESTON DIVISION
2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10272
June 5, 2002, Decided
June 6, 2002, Entered
DISPOSITION: Defendant Miller's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction DENIED. Defendant Hammer's Motion to Dismiss respectfully DENIED.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiffs, a longshoreman and his wife brought a personal injury lawsuit against defendants, a barge owner, the company responsible for the steel on the barge, and a maintenance corporation. The owner and company brought motions to dismiss. The longshoreman maintained that both 33 U.S.C.S. § 905(b) and Article III of the United States Constitution conferred federal jurisdiction over the instant suit.
OVERVIEW: The longshoreman attempted to unload an eighty-five foot long steel-piling sheet from a floating barge. Unbeknownst to the longshoreman, however, the steel-piling sheet was covered with a sticky coating applied by the maintenance corporation. Consequently, a loose chunk of concrete aboard the barge adhered to the sticky steel. The concrete dislodged from the top of the steel sheet and plummeted downward towards him and the longshoreman sustained serious injuries. The longshoreman alleged that all three defendants were negligent. The longshoreman admitted that the he suffered no injury on navigable water and, consequently, could not invoke the court's admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. However, the longshoreman's allegations of negligence by the personnel aboard the barge were equivalent to allegations of negligence by the barge itself, thus, the longshoreman obtained jurisdiction against the barge owner under the Admiralty Extension Act (AEA), 46 U.S.C.S. app. § 740. The longshoreman's claims against the company and the maintenance corporation were so related, that those claims fell within the court's maritime jurisdiction under the AEA.
OUTCOME: The court denied the barge owner's and the company's motions to dismiss.
