United States District Court, D. Alaska
ORDER AND OPINION [RE: MOTION AT DOCKET 127]
JOHN
W. SEDWICK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SENIOR JUDGE
I.
MOTION PRESENTED
At
docket 127, Co-Defendant Safety Management Systems, LLC
(“SMS”) moved for summary judgment pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Co-Defendant, Arctia Offshore, Ltd.,
(“Arctia”) filed its response at docket 129; and
Co-Defendant SMS replied at docket 133.
II.
BACKGROUND
This
matter arises out of a claim for personal injuries allegedly
sustained by Plaintiff in August of 2012 while he was working
aboard the M/V NORDICA, a vessel owned by Arctia. At the time
of the alleged incident, Plaintiff Blane Barry was employed
by EPS Cargo Handlers or EPS Logistics (collectively
“EPS”) as a lead rigger aboard the NORDICA. The
NORDICA was supplied by Arctia via a Master Time Charter with
Shell Offshore, Inc. (“Shell”) to aid Shell with
marine oil field support and transportation services. Shell
separately contracted with SMS to provide a safety
representative aboard the NORDICA throughout the voyage.
Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that he seriously injured
his back and neck while lifting a heavy cable. He seeks
damages for lost earnings, lost earning capacity, past and
future medical expenses, and “physical and emotional
pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life.”
III.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary
judgment is appropriate where “there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.”[1] The materiality requirement
ensures that “[o]nly disputes over facts that might
affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will
properly preclude the entry of summary
judgment.”[2] Ultimately, “summary judgment will
not lie if the . . . evidence is such that a reasonable jury
could return a verdict for the nonmoving
party.”[3] However, summary judgment is mandated
“against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient
to establish the existence of an element essential to that
party's case, and on which that party will bear the
burden of proof at trial.”[4]
The
moving party has the burden of showing that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact.[5] Where the
nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial on a
dispositive issue, the moving party need not present evidence
to show that summary judgment is warranted; it need only
point out the lack of any genuine dispute as to material
fact.[6] Once the moving party has met this burden,
the nonmoving party must set forth evidence of specific facts
showing the existence of a genuine issue for
trial.[7] All evidence presented by the non-movant
must be believed for purposes of summary judgment, and all
justifiable inferences must be drawn in favor of the
non-movant.[8] However, the non-moving party may not rest
upon mere allegations or denials but must show that there is
sufficient evidence supporting the claimed factual dispute to
require a fact-finder to resolve the parties' differing
versions of the truth at trial.[9]
IV.
DISCUSSION
Under
maritime law, “negligence actions involve a duty of
reasonable care.”[10] “In some cases, custom may be
enough to establish a duty [under maritime
law].”[11] Whether a party “breached this
duty is a question of fact for trial.”[12] “As
with the issue of breach, proximate cause is usually a
factual decision that should be decided at
trial.”[13] “Summary judgment is rarely
granted in negligence cases because the issue of
‘[w]hether the defendant acted reasonably is ordinarily
a question for the trier of fact.'”[14]
Two
central factual questions remain in dispute necessitating the
presence of SMS as a Co-Defendant in this case. Joshua Wyatt
was the safety representative assigned to the vessel by SMS.
His duty and responsibility regarding safety on the NORDICA
and the duty and responsibilities of SMS in relationship to
Shell are issues that remain in dispute. Thus, taking all
facts in a light most favorable to Co-Defendant Artica, the
motion for summary judgment must be denied.
V.
CONCLUSION
For the
reasons stated above, Co-Defendant SMS's motion for
summary ...