Cruise Ship Law

GLEN A. BAUMGART, Plaintiff, -against- TRANSOCEANIC CABLE SHIP COMPANY, INC. and C/S GLOBAL MARINER, L.P., Defendants.

No. 01 Civ. 5990 (LTS) (HBP)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OFNEW YORK
2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19921
November 7, 2003, Decided

SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Motions ruled upon by Baumgart v. Transoceanic Cable Ship Co., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19921 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 7, 2003)

DISPOSITION: Defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part.

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff seaman sued defendant vessel owner, employer, and another company for injuries he sustained while serving on board a vessel, including claims of unseaworthiness, negligence under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.S. app. § 688, and maintenance and cure. Defendants moved for summary judgment.

OVERVIEW: The employer and vessel owner were not entitled to summary judgment on the unseaworthiness claims because it was undisputed that the seaman was employed exclusively by the employer, that the vessel owner owned the vessel upon which he was injured, and that the employer was the demise charterer at the time the injuries were incurred. However, the unseaworthiness, negligence, and maintenance and cure claims against the other company did not survive as the seaman offered no evidence as to that company's role other than pointing out that it was named in the preamble to a collective bargaining agreement between the seamen's union and the employer. The Jones Act and maintenance and cure claims against the vessel owner were dismissed as those claims could only be asserted against a seaman's employer.

OUTCOME: The motion for summary judgment was granted with respect to the claims against the other company, and the negligence and maintenance and cure claims against the vessel's owner, but was otherwise denied.