Cruise Ship Law

WALTER RADUT and DOROTHY RADUT, Plaintiffs, - against -STATE STREET BANK & TRUST CO. as Owner Trustee, HURON LEASING, LLC, U.S. SHIP MANAGEMENT, INC., MAERSK, INC., MAERSK LINE LIMITED d/b/a Maersk Sealand, and the MV SEA-LAND ACHIEVER, her engines, tackle, gear, appurtenances, etc., Defendants.

03 Civ. 7663 (SAS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22318
November 3, 2004, Decided
November 4, 2004, Filed

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiffs, an independent contractor and his wife, sued defendant corporation on various claims arising out of injuries sustained by the contractor while working on the corporation's vessel. The corporation moved for summary judgment on plaintiffs' claim for unseaworthiness. The corporation also moved to dismiss plaintiffs' claims alleging non-pecuniary damages and the wife's claim for loss of consortium.

OVERVIEW: The corporation argued that because the contractor was not a seaman he was not entitled to pursue an unseaworthiness claim under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.S. app. § 688. The court found that the undisputed facts established the contractor's status as a Sieracki seaman where the contractor worked, slept, and ate alongside the crew; he went to sea with the ship; he was exposed to the same hazards as the crew; and, most importantly, he was performing the ship's service, at the owner's request. Therefore, because the contractor was a Sieracki seaman, he was entitled to bring an action for unseaworthiness against the corporation, and the corporation's motion for summary judgment was denied. The Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.S. app. § 688 and the Death on the High Seas Act, 46 U.S.C.S. app. § 761 did not permit recovery for non-pecuniary damages. Therefore, because the contractor and his wife had availed themselves of a cause of action available only to seamen--their unseaworthiness claim under the Jones Act--they could not recover non-pecuniary damages from the corporation, and the corporation's motion to dismiss the claims for punitive damages and loss of consortium was granted.

OUTCOME: The corporation's motion for summary judgment was denied. The corporation's motion to dismiss the non-pecuniary claims was granted.