A Tanker's Owner And Operator Were Not Entitled To Summary Judgment On A Claim For Negligence Under The Jones Act Because There Were Genuine Issues Of Fact As To Whether The Duty To Provide A Reasonably Safe Workplace Required Installation Of Lights Insid
KIMBERLY BORGES -v- SEABULK INTERNATIONAL, INC. f/k/a HVIDE MARINE INC.,
INTEROCEAN MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, and THE SS HMI DIAMONDS SHOALS,
In Rem
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74928
October 17, 2006, Decided
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff chief mate filed an action against defendants, the owner and the operator of a product tanker, asserting claims for negligence under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.S. app. ยง 688, unseaworthiness of the vessel, maintenance and cure, and punitive damages. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment as to the negligence and unseaworthiness claims.
OVERVIEW: The chief mate was the second in command on defendants' vessel. While conducting an inspection of a ballast tank, the chief mate fell into a lightening hole, breaking several ribs. The chief mate alleged that defendants were negligent in failing to provide intrinsically safe drop lights inside the ballast tank, that such drop lights were provided to defendants' sister vessels, that the chief mate probably would not have fallen in a lightening hole if the drop lights had been available, that no other drop lights could be used aboard product tankers, and that she had made complaints to the captain on multiple occasions regarding the lack of lights. With respect to the negligence claim, the court held that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether defendants' duty to provide a reasonably safe workplace required installation of lights inside the tank and whether the lack of lighting played a part in causing the chief mate's injuries. Defendants were not entitled to summary judgment on the unseaworthiness claim because a reasonable jury could find that the vessel was rendered unseaworthy by the lack of lights in the tank.
OUTCOME: The court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment.
