Maritime Personal Injury Defense
On behalf of a major oil company and its P&I Club, we defeated a Master Mariner’s multi-million dollar personal injury claim.
Because plaintiff’s work largely involved vessel construction rather than time at sea, our summary judgment motion was granted due to lack of seaman status and lack of maritime tort jurisdiction.
Hitting a grand slam, plaintiff’s Jones Act negligence, unseaworthiness, and maintenance and cure claims, as well as his LHWCA §905(b) claim were all dismissed.
Zeghibe v. ConocoPhillips Co., 793 F.Supp.2d 478 (D. Mass. 2011).
We defended a scrap metal exporter who provides stevedore and terminal services on Boston Harbor and who voyage chartered the SEA BANIAN.
While it was berthed at our terminal a cargo surveyor hired by the Turkish consignee fell while climbing aboard via the vessel’s Jacob’s ladder, resulting in multiple surgeries.
Our motion for a summary judgment dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims and the vessel’s claims for contribution from our client was granted.
We briefed case law precedent that a marine terminal owes no duty of ingress or egress from its dock to a vessel (which is the vessel’s responsibility, particularly when involving its own appurtenances), and established that U.S. Customs had ordered the terminal’s shoreside gangway disconnected after cargo operations ended for the day, to detain the Chinese crew aboard.
Altinkaya v. SEA BANIAN et al, C.A. 08-10421-RGS (D. Mass. 2010).
Cargo and Bills of Lading
We sued on behalf of an Icelandic ocean carrier for unpaid freight on 32 containers of frozen herring shipped from Boston to Estonia. After trial, the U.S. District Court easily found the Shipper listed on bills of lading liable.
Our trickier case was against the Merchant not listed on bills of lading but it too was liable under backside terms and conditions as well as its oral maritime contracts and prior course of dealing as Judge Lasker found the Merchant “uncooperative, evasive, non-responsive, and less than credible.”
The District Court also awarded our attorneys’ fees. The First Circuit affirmed, noting “counsel’s fee was well earned.”
EIMSKIP, The Iceland Steamship Co. v. Mayflower Int’l Ltd., 338 F.Supp.2d 191, 2004 AMC 1904 (D. Mass. 2004), aff’d sub nom EIMSKIP v. Atlantic Fish Market, Inc., 417 F.3d 72, 2005 AMC 1817 (1st Cir. 2005).
We defended a cargo damage case involving fourteen containers shipped from China to Massachusetts, on appointment by DeOrchis, Hillenbrand & O’Brien of Florida.
Judge Tauro dismissed all of plaintiffs’ claims on summary judgment based on the COGSA time-bar, Carmack Amendment exemptions, and various contract terms.
The opinion also nicely clarifies murky First Circuit distinctions between freight forwarders and NVOCCs. Talbots, Inc. v. CSX Transportation, Inc., — F.Supp.2d — (D.Mass. 2011).
.
Marina Fires
We obtained a summary judgment dismissal of all tort, contract, and bailment claims against a yacht club following a fire that destroyed two vessels and damaged eight more. Adopting our arguments, Judge Collings dissected First Circuit maritime law — as supplemented by state law to fill gaps where maritime law is silent — and enforced the club’s by-laws and exculpatory language. On appeal to the First Circuit by the boat owners/club members, Justice Souter affirmed.
In re Martin, 596 F.Supp.2d 142 (D. Mass. 2009), aff’d 2010 AMC 2398 (1st Cir. 2010) (Souter, J.).
After a two week trial of a multi-million dollar marina fire, we absolved our client and defeated an adjacent yacht’s husband and wife’s attempt to limit their liability. Our marine surveyor, fire origin investigator, and electrical causation expert did a stellar forensic job insofar as much of the electrical evidence vaporized in the blaze before the yachts sank at their slips. Then the husband and wife made things worse by losing critical evidence, which Judge Bowler found “highly questionable” and she found them to have an “unconvincing demeanor at trial on cross examination.” They should not have “closed their eyes” to obvious problems with their shore power cables which started the fire and should have followed the manufacturer’s instructions and trouble shooting guide.
In re Rhotens Limitation Proceeding, 397 F.Supp.2d 151 (D. Mass. 2005)
Death on the High Seas
In a harrowing tale of a New Bedford scalloper’s “hanging down” and sinking within ten minutes during one last tow before Christmas, we settled all claims asserted by the crew’s five estates and one survivor for less than the cost of a summary judgment motion.
Rather than alleged stability alterations, it was onboard negligence (including the crew’s leaving the engine room and galley hatches open for warmth on deck and the scuppers closed, resulting in rapid down flooding when 15 foot seas washed over the rail) that caused this tragedy.
Furtado v. Lopes Welding Services, Inc., Bristol Superior Court, BRCV2007-01027-C.
