Ship Owner's Motions For Summary Judgment For Its Liability For The Death Of An Elderly Woman (Grandmother Of Seaman Working For Ship Owner) Denied Where Seaman Is Struck In The Head While Working And Then Later Intentionally Kills His Grandmother.
OBEDEAN CREAR, JR. VERSUS OMEGA PROTEIN, INC.
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 99-420, REF: ALL CASES SECTION "L" (1)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15759
August 20, 2002, Decided
August 21, 2002, Filed; August 22, 2002, Entered
DISPOSITION: Defendant's motion to dismiss denied and Defendant's motion for summary judgment denied as premature.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff crewmember was struck in the head as he worked on defendant vessel owner's vessel. The crewmember filed suit against the vessel owner under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.S. app. § 688 and general maritime law. The crewmember killed his grandmother. The children of the deceased brought suit against the vessel owner and alleged negligence. The suits were consolidated. The vessel owner moved to dismiss and for summary judgment.
OVERVIEW: The deceased's children alleged that the proximate cause of the crewmember's act was the vessel owner's negligence in injuring the crewmember and in failing to live up to its obligations under the general maritime law, which exacerbated his mental impairment. The vessel owner argued that the claims were governed by general maritime law and that the crew member's intentional murder of his grandmother, was an unforeseeable, superseding cause of harm for which the vessel owner was not liable. The court found that the incident in which the crewmember killed his grandmother fell within admiralty jurisdiction since the alleged damages were "consummated on land" but were allegedly "caused by a vessel on navigable waters." The incidents complained of, maritime negligence and/ or unseaworthiness, and failure to provide maintenance and cure, had the potential to disrupt maritime commerce and the general character of the activity showed a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity. Because the children's' claims stemmed from the death of a non-seafarer, and Congress had not prescribed a comprehensive remedy for such claims, state law could supplement general maritime law.
OUTCOME: The vessel owner's motion to dismiss was denied and the vessel owner's motion for summary judgment was denied as premature, and the vessel owner's right to rearurge the motion at a later date was reserved.
