IN A CASE BROUGHT UNDER § 905(B) OF THE LHWCA, IN THE VESSEL OWNERS SOUGHT SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ARGUING THAT THE WORKER WAS UNABLE TO PROVE THAT THEY OWED A LEGAL DUTY TO PROTECT HIM FROM THE INJURY HE ALLEGEDLY SUFFERED, THAT MOTION WAS DENIED BECAUSE THER
LYDIA CLEMENTS and RAYMOND CLEMENTS VERSUS QUARK, LTD., QUARK FISHING LTD. AJC INTERNATIONAL, INC., AJC INTERNATIONAL (EXPORT), INC., AJC INTERNATIONAL (WEST), INC., AJC INTERNATIONAL TRADING CORPORATION, AJC INTERNATIONAL, LTD., (VIRGIN ISLANDS), AJC ATLANTIC, AJC FOODS, NORBULK SHIPPING (UK) LTD.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26387
April 10, 2007, Filed
PROCEDURAL POSTURE:In a personal injury case brought under § 905(b) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, plaintiff worker sued defendants, the owner/operators (owners) of a vessel and a voyage charterer. The worker claimed that he was disabled due to his injury. The owners moved for summary judgment, arguing that the worker was unable to prove that they owed a legal duty to protect him from the injury he allegedly suffered.
OVERVIEW: The worker countered that they failed to turn over a reasonably safe vessel to the stevedore. To bolster that argument, the worker relied on testimony from his expert, who testified that the deckboards of the vessel were in substandard condition under circumstances in which insufficient time was given for proper maintenance and no safe alternative was provided to protect the stevedore from the defects. The worker argued that the obvious lack of maintenance and/or the insufficient maintenance by the owners and crew of the vessel raised factual issues as to its responsibility under their control. Further, the expert opined that the grated decks of the vessel were not properly placed, supported, maintained, or designed to support workers and that the owners of the vessel did not comply with the mandatory duty to inspect and find defects and to warn of these defects. The worker's expert added that there was no safety management system in place to identify and safeguard against risks such as cracked and defective floorboards, as required by the International Safety Management Code. Those serious fact issues precluded the granting of summary judgment in favor of the owners.
OUTCOME: The motion for summary judgment was denied.
