Knox v. Bisso Marine, Llc, et al

MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment

E.D. La.July 10, 2017

{N3435513.1} 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ****************************************************************************** PATRICK KNOX * * Plaintiff * * C.A. NO. 2:16-CV-13350-JCA-MBN V. * * BISSO MARINE, LLC * * Defendant * JUDGE ZAINEY * COASTAL TOWING, L.L.C., * * Defendant and * Cross-Plaintiff * * REC MARINE * LOGISTICS, LLC, A&A BOATS, INC. * MAGISTRATE JUDGE NORTH * Defendants and * Cross-Defendants * * ****************************************************************************** COASTAL TOWING, LLC’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, comes Defendant and Cross-Plaintiff, Coastal Towing, LLC (“Coastal”), who respectfully moves this Honorable Court for Partial Summary Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 upon showing that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that judgment should be granted as a matter of law, dismissing with prejudice the Jones Act negligence and general maritime law unseaworthiness claims of Plaintiff, Patrick Knox, asserted against Coastal. Plaintiff was transferred via personnel basket from the M/V TRENT JOSEPH to the M/V MIGHTY CHIEF for medical evacuation after he developed severe abdominal pain. Plaintiff Case 2:16-cv-13350-JCZ-MBN Document 67 Filed 07/10/17 Page 1 of 2 {N3435513.1} 2 unequivocally admits that he was uninjured following this personnel basket transfer. After receiving medical treatment on the M/V MIGHTY CHIEF for approximately six hours, Plaintiff was again transferred via personnel basket; this time from the M/V MIGHTY CHIEF to the M/V MS. JANE. It was during this second personnel basket transfer that Plaintiff alleged he sustained severe injuries. Coastal was not in any way involved in this second transfer, owed no duty to Plaintiff in relation to such transfer, and did not in any way cause, by either its actions or omissions, Plaintiff’s alleged injuries. For these reasons and those set forth in the attached memorandum in support of this motion, Coastal respectfully prays that, after due proceedings are had, its motion for partial summary judgment be granted and that the Jones Act negligence claims and general maritime law unseaworthiness claims of Plaintiff, Patrick Knox, be dismissed with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, ____/s/ Jefferson R. Tillery JEFFERSON R. TILLERY (Bar #17831) C. BARRETT RICE (Bar #30034) HANSFORD P. WOGAN (Bar #34825) Jones Walker LLP 201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 4700 New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 582-8616 Fax: (504) 582-8015 Attorneys for Coastal Towing, LLC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the above and foregoing has been forwarded to all counsel of record via the Court’s ECF filing system, US Mail, and/or email on this 10th day of July, 2017. ____/s/ Jefferson R. Tillery Case 2:16-cv-13350-JCZ-MBN Document 67 Filed 07/10/17 Page 2 of 2 {N3435513.1} 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ****************************************************************************** PATRICK KNOX * * Plaintiff * * C.A. NO. 2:16-CV-13350-JCA-MBN V. * * BISSO MARINE, LLC * * Defendant * JUDGE ZAINEY * COASTAL TOWING, L.L.C., * * Defendant and * Cross-Plaintiff * * REC MARINE * LOGISTICS, LLC, A&A BOATS, INC. * MAGISTRATE JUDGE NORTH * Defendants and * Cross-Defendants * * ****************************************************************************** COASTAL TOWING, LLC’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT: Defendant and Cross-Plaintiff, Coastal Towing, LLC (“Coastal”), submits this memorandum in support of its motion for partial summary judgment. Coastal respectfully requests summary judgment dismissing with prejudice the negligence and unseaworthiness claims of plaintiff, Patrick Knox. Undersigned counsel recognizes that summary dismissal of a Jones Act negligence claim is a rare occurrence due to the usual presence of a myriad of genuine issues of fact. However, this case is the rare case where dismissal of the Jones Act employer is warranted. Case 2:16-cv-13350-JCZ-MBN Document 67-1 Filed 07/10/17 Page 1 of 12 {N3435513.1} 2 Plaintiff’s uncontested testimony definitively establishes that he was not injured as a result of the only personnel basket transfer in which Coastal participated. Plaintiff’s injuries are solely related to a subsequent personnel basket transfer that occurred approximately six hours after Plaintiff was successfully transferred from Coastal's vessel to the M/V MIGHTY CHIEF, a lay barge owned and operated by Bisso Marine, LLC (“Bisso”). Moreover, it is uncontested that Coastal had no involvement in the personnel basket transfer that resulted in Plaintiff’s injuries. No Coastal employee, excluding Plaintiff, was involved in this transfer and Plaintiff was not transferred to or from a Coastal vessel during this transfer. Accordingly, judgment should be rendered as a matter of law dismissing with prejudice Plaintiff's Jones Act and unseaworthiness claims against Coastal. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On or around July 18, 2014, Plaintiff, Patrick Knox, was employed by Coastal as a mate aboard the M/V TRENT JOSEPH, a tugboat owned and operated by Coastal. (Exhibit 1, Deposition of Patrick Knox, pp. 58-60). The M/V TRENT JOSEPH was performing towing and anchor pulling operations for the pipe laying barge, M/V MIGHTY CHIEF. Id. At approximately 7:00 a.m., Plaintiff began experiencing pain in his abdomen as a result of kidney stones while working aboard the M/V TRENT JOSEPH. Id. at p. 64. A couple of hours later, Plaintiff was transferred via personnel basket from the M/V TRENT JOSEPH to the M/V MIGHTY CHIEF using the same personnel basket from which he was later thrown. Id. at pp. 67-68. Deckhands on the M/V TRENT JOSEPH used taglines on the personnel basket to help guide it. Id. Significantly, Plaintiff testified that he did not sustain any injuries during this personnel basket transfer from the TRENT JOSEPH to the MIGHTY CHIEF, and that any injuries sustained were related to the subsequent transfer from the MIGHTY CHIEF to the MISS JANE. Case 2:16-cv-13350-JCZ-MBN Document 67-1 Filed 07/10/17 Page 2 of 12 {N3435513.1} 3 Q. Okay. During that transfer operation from the TRENT JOSEPH to the MIGHTY CHIEF – A. Uh-huh (indicating affirmatively). Q. -- did you sustain any injuries? A. No. We bounced around a little bit, but you’re trained for that. Hang on. You always watch what you’re doing and you use your feet. But there was no injuries at all. Q. During the TRENT JOSEPH to MIGHTY CHIEF transfer? A. Correct. Q. In truth and fact, the injuries that you sustained that you have filed a lawsuit for today dealing with your back, your hip, your PTSD and your knee, were injuries that you sustained during the transfer from the MIGHTY CHIEF to the MISS JANE. Is that true? A. Yes. Id. at pp. 68-69. During later questioning by counsel for REC Marine regarding the transfer from the TRENT JOSEPH to the MIGHTY CHIEF, the following exchange also took place: Q. It was an unsafe place to put you down, wasn’t it? A. I walked off with no injuries there. Id. at p. 101. Plaintiff had no further contact with anyone on the TRENT JOSEPH after the transfer from the TRENT JOSEPH to the MIGHTY CHIEF. Id. at p. 99. After being transferred from the TRENT JOSEPH to the MIGHTY CHIEF, Plaintiff was placed in a bed and received treatment from a medic. Id. at pp. 6-7. Plaintiff remained in bed for approximately six hours until he was transferred to the REC Marine vessel, the MISS JANE. Id. Plaintiff was initially supposed to be transferred from the MIGHTY CHIEF by helicopter. Id. at pp. 10-11. However, the helicopter Case 2:16-cv-13350-JCZ-MBN Document 67-1 Filed 07/10/17 Page 3 of 12 {N3435513.1} 4 could not land on the MIGHTY CHIEF. Id. at pp. 12-13. As a result, the helicopter landed on a nearby platform to which Plaintiff was to be transported on the MISS JANE. Id. at p. 55. Plaintiff was transferred from the MIGHTY CHIEF to the MISS JANE using the same basket that was used to transfer Plaintiff without incident from the TRENT JOSEPH to the MIGHTY CHIEF. Id. at p. 67. Shayne Prowler, the medic providing treatment to Plaintiff, and Sidney Howell, a rigger employed by Bisso, were positioned on the personnel basket alongside Plaintiff. Id. at pp. 14-15; Exhibit B, Bisso’s Answers to REC Marine’s Interrogatories, at p. 3. The personnel basket was raised using a crane aboard the MIGHTY CHIEF, which was operated by John Gibson, a crane operator employed by Bisso. Exhibit B, Bisso’s Answers to REC Marine’s Interrogatories, at p. 3. The personnel basket was lowered striking the deck of the MISS JANE. Exhibit A, Deposition of Patrick Knox, pp. 14-16. When the crane operator raised the basket, Plaintiff was thrown from the basket and struck the deck of the MISS JANE. Id. The fall to the deck of the MISS JANE and subsequent striking of Plaintiff by the swinging personnel basket caused his injuries. Id. Plaintiff makes the following allegations regarding Coastal’s negligence and/or unseaworthiness in his Complaint:1 12. The following parties are negligent for the following reasons: * * * f. All parties, excluding Knox, are liable for negligently supervising the basket transfer; * * * 1 Plaintiff’s Complaint also asserts a claim for maintenance and cure against Coastal. This motion for summary judgment does not address such maintenance and cure claims and does not seek dismissal thereof. Coastal has paid, and continues to pay, all maintenance and cure owed Plaintiff. Case 2:16-cv-13350-JCZ-MBN Document 67-1 Filed 07/10/17 Page 4 of 12 {N3435513.1} 5 13. The parties, excluding Knox are all vicariously liable for their employees’ negligence. 14. At all relevant times, the vessels involved were unseaworthy, which renders the parties, excluding Knox, liable. [R. Doc. 20]. Importantly, Plaintiff makes no allegations alleging that Coastal was actively negligent in the operation of the personnel basket transfer. The only allegations of negligence on the part of Coastal is its alleged passive negligence in supervising the basket transfer. LAW AND ANALYSIS I. Summary Judgment Standard Summary judgment shall be granted “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). The movant must support the assertion that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact by “citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations…, admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(b). Whether a fact is “material” is determined by the substantive law's identification of which facts are critical and which facts are irrelevant. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A fact is material if it “might affect the outcome of this suit under the governing law.” Id. It is not enough for the non-moving party to point to an alleged factual dispute, rather specific facts must be set forth in rebuttal to show that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Id. at 247-248. The non-movant's burden of demonstrating a genuine issue is not satisfied merely by creating "some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts," "by conclusory allegations," by "unsubstantiated assertions," or "by only a scintilla of evidence." Little, 37 F.3d at 1075. Rather, a factual dispute precludes a grant of summary judgment only if the evidence is sufficient to permit Case 2:16-cv-13350-JCZ-MBN Document 67-1 Filed 07/10/17 Page 5 of 12 {N3435513.1} 6 a reasonable trier of fact to find for the non-moving party. Smith v. Amedisys, 298 F.3d 434, 440 (5th Cir. 2002).If no genuine issue of material fact exists, then the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a); see also, Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). If the dispositive issue is one on which the non-moving party will bear the burden of proof at trial, the moving party may satisfy its summary judgment burden by merely pointing out that the evidence in the record contains insufficient proof concerning an essential element of the non- moving party's claim. See, Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2554, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986; see also Lavespere v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 910 F.2d 167, 178 (5th Cir. 1990). Once the moving party carries its burden pursuant to Rule 56(c), the non-moving party must "go beyond the pleadings and by [his] own affidavits, or by the 'depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file', designate 'specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2553; see also Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1356, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986); Auguster v. Vermillion Parish School Bd., 249 F.3d 400, 402 (5th Cir. 2001). Federal courts favor granting summary judgment to achieve the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of actions. As the late Judge Rubin noted, summary judgment “affords a merciful end to litigation that would otherwise be lengthy and expensive.” Fontenot v. Upjohn Co., 780 F.2d 1190, 1197 (5th Cir. 1986). The United States Supreme Court recognizes that “[s]ummary judgment procedure is properly regarded, not as a disfavored procedural shortcut, but rather as an integral part of the federal rules as a whole, which are designed to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action.” Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 327 (internal quotation marks omitted). Case 2:16-cv-13350-JCZ-MBN Document 67-1 Filed 07/10/17 Page 6 of 12 {N3435513.1} 7 II. Plaintiff’s Jones Act Negligence Claims against Coastal Must Be Dismissed The Jones Act allows “[a] seaman injured in the course of employment” to sue his employer for personal injuries suffered as a result of the employer's negligence. 46 U.S.C. § 30104; see Park v. Stockstill Boat Rentals, Inc., 492 F.3d 600, 602–03 (5th Cir.2007). To state a cause of action for negligence under the General Maritime Law, a “plaintiff must demonstrate that there was a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, breach of that duty, injury sustained by plaintiff, and a causal connection between defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's injury.” In re Cooper/T.Smith, 929 F.2d 1073, 1077 (5th Cir. 1991). See also Canal Barge Co. v. Torco Oil Co., 220 F.3d 370, 376 (5th Cir. 2000); In re Nassau Bay Water Sports, Inc., 62 F.3d 397 (5th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). The standard of care attributable to both an employer and an employee under the Jones Act is “ordinary prudence” under the circumstances. Gautreaux v. Scurlock Marine, 107 F.3d 331, 338 (5th Cir. 1997) (citing Fashauer v. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc., 57 F.3d 1269, 1283 (3rd Cir. 1995)). While a Jones Act employer has a duty to provide a "reasonably safe place to work," the employer must have notice and opportunity to correct the allegedly unsafe condition or action. Colburn v. Bunge Towing, Inc., 883 F.2d 372 (5th Cir. 1989); Havens v. F/T POLAR MIST, 996 F.2d 215 (9th Cir. 1993). “[A] party's negligence is actionable only if it is the ‘legal cause’ of the plaintiff's injuries,” which “is something more than ‘but for’ causation, and the negligence must be a ‘substantial factor’ in the injury.” Donaghey v. Ocean Drilling & Exploration Co., 974 F.2d 646, 649 (5th Cir. 1992) (quoting Chavez v. Noble Drilling Corp., 567 F.2d 287, 289 (5th Cir. 1978); Thomas v. Express Boat Co., Inc., 759 F.2d 444, 448 (5th Cir. 1985)). A seaman's burden of proving causation in a Jones Act negligence claim has been deemed “slight,” as a seaman must only show that “his employer's negligence is the cause, in whole or in part, of his injury.” Gautreaux, 107 F.3d at 335. However, a party seeking summary judgment may rely upon the complete absence Case 2:16-cv-13350-JCZ-MBN Document 67-1 Filed 07/10/17 Page 7 of 12 {N3435513.1} 8 of proof of an essential element of the other party's cause. Fontenot v. Upjohn Co., 780 F.2d 1190, 1196 (5th Cir.1986). "[T]he movant may discharge his burden by demonstrating that if the case went to trial there would be no competent evidence to support a judgment for his opponent." Id. (quoting 10A C. Miller, A. Wright, M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d Sec. 2727 at 130 (1983) (hereinafter Wright)). Plaintiff cannot establish his allegations of negligence against Coastal for a number of reasons. The first and most obvious reason is that there is no causal connection between the conduct of Coastal and Plaintiff’s injuries. It is undisputed that Coastal was not involved in the personnel basket transfer during which Plaintiff was injured. Indeed, Plaintiff’s uncontested testimony establishes that the only personnel basket transfer in which Coastal was involved – the earlier transfer from the TRENT JOSEPH to the MIGHTY CHIEF – resulted in no injury to Plaintiff. Bisso and REC Marine were the only parties involved in the personnel basket transfer that caused Plaintiff’s injuries. With regard to the personnel basket transfer from the MIGHTY CHIEF to the MISS JANE during which Plaintiff was injured, Coastal did not breach any duty owed to Plaintiff, including any duty to provide a safe place to work. There can be no breach of the duty to provide a safe place to work if Coastal did not have notice of and the opportunity to correct the unsafe condition. The evidence in this case clearly establishes that Coastal had no notice of any unsafe condition. First, on the same day of the accident, Coastal participated in a personnel basket transfer of Plaintiff to the MIGHTY CHIEF using the same personnel basket and crane used in the later transfer. It is undisputed that this earlier transfer was successful and did not result in any injury to Plaintiff. Accordingly, Coastal had no reason to believe that the MIGHTY CHIEF, including its Case 2:16-cv-13350-JCZ-MBN Document 67-1 Filed 07/10/17 Page 8 of 12 {N3435513.1} 9 appurtenances, were unsafe or that subsequent personnel basket transfers would be conducted in an unsafe manner. Further, even if Coastal had actual or constructive knowledge of any unsafe condition aboard the MIGHTY CHIEF related to the personnel basket transfer, which it did not, it had no notice that Plaintiff was going to be transferred to the MISS JANE via personnel basket. As Plaintiff testified, it was understood by all that he was going to be transported to shore from the MIGHTY CHIEF by helicopter at the time that Plaintiff was transferred from the TRENT JOSEPH to the MIGHTY CHIEF. The evacuation plan was not changed until the helicopter arrived at the MIGHTY CHIEF and discovered that it could not land onboard. It was then decided that Plaintiff would be transported to a nearby platform aboard the MISS JANE, where he would then board the helicopter. There is no evidence that Coastal or any of its employees knew of or were consulted regarding this change in plans, or that Coastal or any of its employees were ever made aware that Plaintiff was being transferred from the MIGHTY CHIEF to the MISS JANE. Without such notice and/or opportunity to correct such unsafe condition, there can be no breach of the duty to provide a safe place to work by Coastal. Finally, there is no evidence of an unsafe condition of which Coastal should have been aware, which is necessary to establish a breach of the duty to provide a safe place to work. No evidence has been introduced in this litigation regarding any deficiency in the crane, the personnel basket, the MISS JANE, the MIGHTY CHIEF, or the crews of either the MISS JANE or the MIGHTY CHIEF of which Coastal should have been aware. If such deficiency did exist, it is impossible for Coastal to have had advance knowledge of any such deficiency, especially since there is no evidence that Bisso, REC Marine, the MISS JANE, or the MIGHTY CHIEF had a history of similar negligent acts of which Coastal should have been aware. Case 2:16-cv-13350-JCZ-MBN Document 67-1 Filed 07/10/17 Page 9 of 12 {N3435513.1} 10 Coastal’s actions were in accordance with those of any ordinarily prudent vessel operator. There is a complete lack of evidence in this matter establishing a breach of any duty owed to Plaintiff by Coastal or a causal connection between the actions of Coastal and Plaintiff’s injuries. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Jones Act negligence claims against Coastal must be dismissed with prejudice. III. Plaintiff’s Unseaworthiness Claims against Coastal Must Be Dismissed It is well established that it is only the owner and/or operator of a vessel that owes members of the vessel’s crew the duty to furnish a seaworthy vessel, i.e., one which is reasonably fit for its intended use. The Osceola, 189 U.S. 158 (1903); Mitchell v. Trawler Racer, Inc., 362 U.S. 539 (1960). To succeed on a claim of unseaworthiness, “the injured seaman must prove that the owner has failed to provide a vessel, including her equipment and crew, which is reasonably fit and safe for the purposes for which it is to be used.” Jackson v. OMI Corp., 245 F.3d 525, 527 (5th Cir. 2001). Further, a vessel owner is not required to provide an accident free ship – merely one that is fit for its intended use. Mitchell, 362 U.S. 539. The injured seaman must also show that the unseaworthy condition was a cause of his injuries. To establish causation, a seaman “must prove that the unseaworthy condition played a substantial part in bringing about or actually causing the injury and that the injury was either a direct result or a reasonably probable consequence of the unseaworthiness.” Johnson v. Offshore Express, Inc., 845 F.2d 1347, 1354 (5th Cir.1988) (citations omitted). Plaintiff’s unseaworthiness claims must be dismissed for two reasons. First, Coastal did not own or operate either of the vessels involved in the personnel basket transfer (i.e., the MISS JANE and the MIGHTY CHIEF). Accordingly, it owed no duty of seaworthiness to Plaintiff at the time of his injuries. The transfer was from a pipe laying barge owned and operated by Bisso, the MIGHTY CHIEF, to a supply boat owned and operated by REC Marine, the MISS JANE. Case 2:16-cv-13350-JCZ-MBN Document 67-1 Filed 07/10/17 Page 10 of 12 {N3435513.1} 11 Second, even if an unseaworthy condition did exist aboard the TRENT JOSEPH, it could not have caused Plaintiff’s injuries. No Coastal vessel was involved in any way with the personnel basket transfer that resulted in Plaintiff’s injuries. Indeed, Plaintiff testified that he had no contact with any Coastal vessel or employee for more than six hours prior to the accident. Exhibit A, Deposition of Patrick Knox, p. 99. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s unseaworthiness claims against Coastal must be dismissed with prejudice. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Coastal Towing, LLC prays that its Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted and that Plaintiff’s Jones Act negligence and unseaworthiness claims against Coastal should be dismissed with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, ____/s/ Jefferson R. Tillery JEFFERSON R. TILLERY (Bar #17831) C. BARRETT RICE (Bar #30034) HANSFORD P. WOGAN (Bar #34825) Jones Walker LLP 201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 4700 New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 582-8616 Fax: (504) 582-8015 Attorneys for Coastal Towing, LLC Case 2:16-cv-13350-JCZ-MBN Document 67-1 Filed 07/10/17 Page 11 of 12 {N3435513.1} 12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the above and foregoing has been forwarded to all counsel of record via the Court’s ECF filing system, US Mail, and/or email on this 10th day of July, 2017. ____/s/ Jefferson R. Tillery Case 2:16-cv-13350-JCZ-MBN Document 67-1 Filed 07/10/17 Page 12 of 12 Case 2:16-cv-13350-JCZ-MBN Document 67-2 Filed 07/10/17 Page 1 of 19 Case 2:16-cv-13350-JCZ-MBN Document 67-2 Filed 07/10/17 Page 2 of 19 Case 2:16-cv-13350-JCZ-MBN Document 67-2 Filed 07/10/17 Page 3 of 19 Case 2:16-cv-13350-JCZ-MBN Document 67-2 Filed 07/10/17 Page 4 of 19 Case 2:16-cv-13350-JCZ-MBN Document 67-2 Filed 07/10/17 Page 5 of 19 Case 2:16-cv-13350-JCZ-MBN Document 67-2 Filed 07/10/17 Page 6 of 19 Case 2:16-cv-13350-JCZ-MBN Document 67-2 Filed 07/10/17 Page 7 of 19 Case 2:16-cv-13350-JCZ-MBN Document 67-2 Filed 07/10/17 Page 8 of 19 Case 2:16-cv-13350-JCZ-MBN Document 67-2 Filed 07/10/17 Page 9 of 19 Case 2:16-cv-13350-JCZ-MBN Document 67-2 Filed 07/10/17 Page 10 of 19 Case 2:16-cv-13350-JCZ-MBN Document 67-2 Filed 07/10/17 Page 11 of 19 Case 2:16-cv-13350-JCZ-MBN Document 67-2 Filed 07/10/17 Page 12 of 19 Case 2:16-cv-13350-JCZ-MBN Document 67-2 Filed 07/10/17 Page 13 of 19 Case 2:16-cv-13350-JCZ-MBN Document 67-2 Filed 07/10/17 Page 14 of 19 Case 2:16-cv-13350-JCZ-MBN Document 67-2 Filed 07/10/17 Page 15 of 19 Case 2:16-cv-13350-JCZ-MBN Document 67-2 Filed 07/10/17 Page 16 of 19 Case 2:16-cv-13350-JCZ-MBN Document 67-2 Filed 07/10/17 Page 17 of 19 Case 2:16-cv-13350-JCZ-MBN Document 67-2 Filed 07/10/17 Page 18 of 19 Case 2:16-cv-13350-JCZ-MBN Document 67-2 Filed 07/10/17 Page 19 of 19 Case 2:16-cv-13350-JCZ-MBN Document 67-3 Filed 07/10/17 Page 1 of 8 Case 2:16-cv-13350-JCZ-MBN Document 67-3 Filed 07/10/17 Page 2 of 8 Case 2:16-cv-13350-JCZ-MBN Document 67-3 Filed 07/10/17 Page 3 of 8 Case 2:16-cv-13350-JCZ-MBN Document 67-3 Filed 07/10/17 Page 4 of 8 Case 2:16-cv-13350-JCZ-MBN Document 67-3 Filed 07/10/17 Page 5 of 8 Case 2:16-cv-13350-JCZ-MBN Document 67-3 Filed 07/10/17 Page 6 of 8 Case 2:16-cv-13350-JCZ-MBN Document 67-3 Filed 07/10/17 Page 7 of 8 Case 2:16-cv-13350-JCZ-MBN Document 67-3 Filed 07/10/17 Page 8 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ****************************************************************************** PATRICK KNOX * * Plaintiff * * C.A. NO. 2:16-CV-13350-JCA-MBN V. * * BISSO MARINE, LLC * * Defendant * JUDGE ZAINEY * COASTAL TOWING, L.L.C., * * Defendant and * Cross-Plaintiff * * REC MARINE * LOGISTICS, LLC, A&A BOATS, INC. * MAGISTRATE JUDGE NORTH * Defendants and * Cross-Defendants * * ****************************************************************************** COASTAL TOWING, LLC’S STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, comes Defendant and Cross-Plaintiff, Coastal Towing, LLC (“Coastal”), who submit the following Statement of Uncontested Facts in accordance with Local Rule 56.1. 1. On or around July 18, 2014, Plaintiff, Patrick Knox, was employed by Coastal as a mate aboard the M/V TRENT JOSEPH, a tugboat owned and operated by Coastal. (Exhibit 1, Deposition of Patrick Knox, pp. 58-60). Case 2:16-cv-13350-JCZ-MBN Document 67-4 Filed 07/10/17 Page 1 of 4 {N3435513.1} 2 2. On or around July 18, 2014, the M/V TRENT JOSEPH was performing towing and anchor pulling operations for the pipe laying barge, M/V MIGHTY CHIEF. Id. 3. On or around July 18, 2014 at approximately 7:00 a.m., Plaintiff began experiencing pain in his abdomen as a result of kidney stones while working aboard the M/V TRENT JOSEPH. Id. at p. 64. 4. A couple of hours later, Plaintiff was transferred via personnel basket from the M/V TRENT JOSEPH to the M/V MIGHTY CHIEF using the same personnel basket from which he was later thrown. Id. at pp. 67-68. 5. Deckhands on the M/V TRENT JOSEPH used taglines on the personnel basket to help guide it. Id. 6. Plaintiff did not sustain any injuries during this personnel basket transfer from the TRENT JOSEPH to the MIGHTY CHIEF, and any injuries sustained were related to the subsequent transfer from the MIGHTY CHIEF to the MISS JANE. 7. Plaintiff had no further contact with anyone on the TRENT JOSEPH after the transfer from the TRENT JOSEPH to the MIGHTY CHIEF. Id. at p. 99. 8. After being transferred from the TRENT JOSEPH to the MIGHTY CHIEF, Plaintiff was placed in a bed and received treatment from a medic. Id. at pp. 6-7. 9. Plaintiff remained in bed for approximately six hours until he was transferred to the REC Marine vessel, the MISS JANE. Id. 10. Plaintiff was initially supposed to be transferred from the MIGHTY CHIEF by helicopter. Id. at pp. 10-11. 11. The helicopter could not land on the MIGHTY CHIEF’s helipad because the helipad was in a state of disrepair. Id. at pp. 12-13. Case 2:16-cv-13350-JCZ-MBN Document 67-4 Filed 07/10/17 Page 2 of 4 {N3435513.1} 3 12. As a result, the helicopter landed on a nearby platform to which Plaintiff was to be transported on the MISS JANE. Id. at p. 55. 13. Plaintiff was transferred from the MIGHTY CHIEF to the MISS JANE using the same basket that was used to transfer Plaintiff without incident from the TRENT JOSEPH to the MIGHTY CHIEF. Id. at p. 67. 14. Shayne Prowler, the medic providing treatment to Plaintiff, and Sidney Howell, a rigger employed by Bisso, were positioned on the personnel basket alongside Plaintiff. Id. at pp. 14-15; Exhibit B, Bisso’s Answers to REC Marine’s Interrogatories, at p. 3. 15. The personnel basket was raised using a crane aboard the MIGHTY CHIEF, which was operated by John Gibson, a crane operator employed by Bisso. Exhibit B, Bisso’s Answers to REC Marine’s Interrogatories, at p. 3. 16. The personnel basket was lowered striking the deck of the MISS JANE. Exhibit A, Deposition of Patrick Knox, pp. 14-16. 17. When the crane operator raised the personnel basket, Plaintiff was thrown from the basket and struck the deck of the MISS JANE. Id. 18. The fall to the deck of the MISS JANE and subsequent striking of Plaintiff by the swinging personnel basket caused his injuries. Id. 19. Plaintiff makes the following allegations regarding Coastal’s negligence and/or unseaworthiness in his Complaint: 12. The following parties are negligent for the following reasons: * * * f. All parties, excluding Knox, are liable for negligently supervising the basket transfer; * * * Case 2:16-cv-13350-JCZ-MBN Document 67-4 Filed 07/10/17 Page 3 of 4 {N3435513.1} 4 13. The parties, excluding Knox are all vicariously liable for their employees’ negligence. 14. At all relevant times, the vessels involved were unseaworthy, which renders the parties, excluding Knox, liable. 20. Plaintiff makes no allegations alleging that Coastal was actively negligent in the operation of the personnel basket transfer. [R.Doc. 20]. 21. The only allegations of negligence on the part of Coastal is its alleged passive negligence in supervising the basket transfer. [R.Doc. 20]. Respectfully submitted, ____/s/ Jefferson R. Tillery JEFFERSON R. TILLERY (Bar #17831) C. BARRETT RICE (Bar #30034) HANSFORD P. WOGAN (Bar #34825) Jones Walker LLP 201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 4700 New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 582-8616 Fax: (504) 582-8015 Attorneys for Coastal Towing, LLC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the above and foregoing has been forwarded to all counsel of record via the Court’s ECF filing system, US Mail, and/or email on this 10th day of July, 2017. ____/s/ Jefferson R. Tillery Case 2:16-cv-13350-JCZ-MBN Document 67-4 Filed 07/10/17 Page 4 of 4 {N3435513.1} 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ****************************************************************************** PATRICK KNOX * * Plaintiff * * C.A. NO. 2:16-CV-13350-JCA-MBN V. * * BISSO MARINE, LLC * * Defendant * JUDGE ZAINEY * COASTAL TOWING, L.L.C., * * Defendant and * Cross-Plaintiff * * REC MARINE * LOGISTICS, LLC, A&A BOATS, INC. * MAGISTRATE JUDGE NORTH * Defendants and * Cross-Defendants * * ****************************************************************************** NOTICE OF SUBMISSION PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, in accordance with Local Rule 7.2, Coastal Towing, LLC will bring before this Honorable Court its foregoing Motion for Partial Summary Judgment for hearing on the 26th date of July, 2017 at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, at 500 Poydras Street, Courtroom C455, New Orleans, Louisiana. Case 2:16-cv-13350-JCZ-MBN Document 67-5 Filed 07/10/17 Page 1 of 2 {N3435513.1} 2 Respectfully submitted, ____/s/ Jefferson R. Tillery JEFFERSON R. TILLERY (Bar #17831) C. BARRETT RICE (Bar #30034) HANSFORD P. WOGAN (Bar #34825) Jones Walker LLP 201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 4700 New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 582-8616 Fax: (504) 582-8015 Attorneys for Coastal Towing, LLC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the above and foregoing has been forwarded to all counsel of record via the Court’s ECF filing system, US Mail, and/or email on this 10th day of July, 2017. ____/s/ Jefferson R. Tillery Case 2:16-cv-13350-JCZ-MBN Document 67-5 Filed 07/10/17 Page 2 of 2 {N3435513.1} UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ****************************************************************************** PATRICK KNOX * * Plaintiff * * C.A. NO. 2:16-CV-13350-JCA-MBN V. * * BISSO MARINE, LLC * * Defendant * JUDGE ZAINEY * COASTAL TOWING, L.L.C., * * Defendant and * Cross-Plaintiff * * REC MARINE * LOGISTICS, LLC, A&A BOATS, INC. * MAGISTRATE JUDGE NORTH * Defendants and * Cross-Defendants * ****************************************************************************** ORDER CONSIDERING the foregoing Motion for Partial Summary Judgement filed on behalf of Coastal Towing, LLC, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the foregoing Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is GRANTED, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Plaintiff’s Jones Act negligence and General Maritime unseaworthiness claims against Coastal Towing, LLC are dismissed with prejudice. New Orleans, Louisiana this _____________ day of _______________________, 2017. U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE Case 2:16-cv-13350-JCZ-MBN Document 67-6 Filed 07/10/17 Page 1 of 1