Cruise Ship Law: IN A PERSONAL INJURY CASE INVOLVING COLLISION WITH A BARGE, MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED BY LIMITATION PETITIONERS WAS DENIED AND THE WIFE OF THE DECEASED WAS NOT JUDICIALLY ESTOPPED FROM ASSERTING A LOSS OF SUPPORT CLAIM BASED ON ASSERTIONS

In the Matter of the Complaint of Bluegrass Marine, Inc., as Owner pro hac vice of the M/V TITLETOWN U.S.A. Official No. 289724, and Marquette Transportation Company, Inc., For Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY, PADUCAH DIVISION
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1038
January 4, 2008, filed

PROCEDURAL POSTURE Limitation petitioners, owners and interested parties in a vessel filed a motion seeking limitation or exoneration of their liability under the Limitation of Liability Act, 46 U.S.C.S. ¤Ê181 et seq., filed a motion for partial summary judgment against plaintiff wife, as personal representative of a deceased's estate. The wife had filed an action after the deceased was killed in a barge accident.

OVERVIEW: The vessel at issue was pushing 15 barges on the Ohio River when it collided with a houseboat, killing the deceased and two other men, and injuring a fourth person. The incident was the subject of two separate law suits that were consolidated. The limitation petitioners filed a claim for exoneration under the Limitation of Liability Act, former 46 U.S.C.S. ¤Ê181 et seq. and a stipulation on liability was granted. The limitation petitioners sought to judicially estop the wife from asserting a claim for loss of support, based on income claims that the wife and the deceased husband had made in November 2003 in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding that indicated that the deceased, at that time, did not provide income to the family, The court was not convinced that the factors for judicial estoppel were met. The wife's loss of support claim was not clearly inconsistent with the representations made in the earlier bankruptcy proceeding or on earlier tax returns. The wife's loss of support claim did not allow the wife to receive an unfair advantage or impose an unfair detriment on the limitation petitioners. The wife was entitled to produce evidence on the loss of support claim.

OUTCOME: The court denied the motion for partial summary judgment filed by the limitation petitioners.