In re: John Good as owner of the F/V Alosa, For Exoneration From Or Limitation Of Liability
1:19-cv-12514-AK
D. Mass.Sep 30, 2022Background
- On November 18, 2018 Cindy Hurwitz fell from a public pier onto the deck of the F/V ALOSA while unloading fish totes and was injured; she had unloaded that vessel roughly 10–20 times before.
- John Good owns and operated the F/V ALOSA, which used a hydraulic take-out boom to lift totes (60–180 lbs); longshore workers on the pier pulled totes to the dock using a boat hook.
- Two ~125 lb totes were lifted and began to swing as the vessel listed; Hurwitz held the boat hook as the load swung away and was pulled over the dock edge.
- It is undisputed that letting go of the boat hook when the load pulled away would have prevented the fall; Hurwitz admits she failed to let go until she was falling.
- Procedural posture: Good filed for exoneration/limitation of liability; Hurwitz sued for negligence; Good filed a third-party complaint against Wildfish. The court granted Good’s summary judgment, dismissed third-party claims as moot, and denied Wildfish’s motion as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Good breached the ordinary Scindia duty (provide safe vessel condition / warn of latent defects) | Hurwitz argues Good failed to warn and that vessel listing/unloading method made the operation unsafe | Good says boom had no latent defects, listing and pendulum effect were foreseeable cargo risks | Held for Good: no breach; plaintiff did not show an unreasonable or unforeseeable vessel condition |
| Whether Good owed/violated an active-control (active operations) duty | Hurwitz contends Good actively controlled/unloaded and could have prevented the risk or warned her | Good contends crew did not retain operational control causing the danger and events were instantaneous | Held for Good: no active-control breach; no evidence crew had control of a dangerous condition requiring remedial steps |
| Causation — was Good’s conduct a cause of the fall? | Hurwitz argues Good observed her positioning and could have acted (e.g., warned, used dock crane) | Good points to Hurwitz’s admitted failure to let go as the but-for and proximate cause | Held for Good: Hurwitz’s failure to release the hook was the actual and proximate cause; summary judgment for Good |
| Whether availability of a dock crane or Good’s choice of unloading method made him negligent | Hurwitz says Good should have used dock crane or been warned it was dangerous to use boom | Good notes no evidence he was told the boom was unsafe or that using the boom was negligent | Held for Good: mere availability of an alternative does not establish breach; no evidence of negligent operation or latent defect |
Key Cases Cited
- Scindia Steam Navigation Co. v. de los Santos, 451 U.S. 156 (1981) (establishes shipowner duties and the active-control doctrine)
- Davis v. Portline Transportes Mar. Internacional, 16 F.3d 532 (3d Cir. 1994) (sets out four elements of the active-control duty)
- England v. Reinauer Transp. Cos., L.P., 194 F.3d 265 (1st Cir. 1999) (applies active-control principle; vessel retains responsibility for areas/equipment under its control)
- Keller v. United States, 38 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 1994) (describes duty to provide vessel in condition that an expert stevedore can safely work and to warn of latent defects)
- Carr v. PMS Fishing Corp., 191 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1999) (burden allocation in exoneration/limitation proceedings)
- Sawyer Bros., Inc. v. Island Transporter, LLC, 887 F.3d 23 (1st Cir. 2018) (confirms negligence elements apply in maritime cases)
- Polak v. Riverside Marine Constr., Inc., 22 F. Supp. 3d 109 (D. Mass. 2014) (requires vessel condition to have caused or contributed to plaintiff’s injury)