2:15-cv-05985
E.D. La.Dec 9, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Troy Matthiews, a tugboat captain, alleges that on Nov. 30, 2014 a passing tug created excessive wake that caused the M/V MORGAN RAY to shift, causing him to fall between vessels and dislocate his shoulder.
- Matthiews was stepping between the MORGAN RAY and the BAROID 111 while the MORGAN RAY was moored at a Daigle dock on the Harvey Canal. He heard but did not see the passing vessel at the time of his fall.
- Crosby Tugs’ vessel, the M/V CROSBY RAMBLER, indisputably passed the Daigle dock that afternoon; Crosby disputes that it traveled unreasonably fast or caused significant wake.
- Crosby presented AIS data and expert testimony (Captains Fazioli and Anselmi) showing the RAMBLER passed at ~3.2 knots, a reasonable speed in the canal, and that other vessels passed at similar or higher speeds.
- Matthiews’ contemporaneous Coast Guard report omitted mention of wake or the RAMBLER and contained inconsistent timing; the Court found his later trial testimony inconsistent and insufficiently corroborated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Crosby negligently operated the RAMBLER so as to create an unusual swell that caused Matthiews’ injury | Matthiews: a Crosby tug passed at high speed producing 1–1.5 ft wake that shifted MORGAN RAY and caused his fall | Crosby: RAMBLER passed at ~3.2 knots (reasonable); AIS data and expert testimony show little wake and no effect on moored vessels | Court: Held for Crosby — plaintiff failed to prove RAMBLER caused unusual swells or his injury |
| Whether Matthiews proved causation tying the RAMBLER specifically to his injury | Matthiews: identified the RAMBLER by colors and noise, saw a tug after the fall | Crosby: AIS timeline and testimony showed RAMBLER passed at 4:29 p.m.; plaintiff’s report gives different times and another tug passed earlier at higher speed | Court: Held plaintiff did not prove by preponderance that RAMBLER was the offending vessel |
| Credibility of plaintiff’s testimony and documentary evidence | Matthiews relied on his own testimony and a claimed written account given to an adjuster | Crosby: pointed to omissions/inconsistencies in Coast Guard report, lack of eyewitnesses, and stronger documentary AIS evidence | Court: Found plaintiff’s account unreliable and outweighed by AIS data and experts |
| Whether Court needed to address contributory negligence | Matthiews: not the main focus at liability phase | Crosby: argued contributory negligence could bar recovery | Court: Did not decide contributory negligence because plaintiff failed on primary burden |
Key Cases Cited
- Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527 (maritime jurisdiction and connection test)
- Sanders v. Placid Oil Co., 861 F.2d 1374 (5th Cir.) (maritime tort guidance)
- In re Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. LLC, 624 F.3d 201 (5th Cir.) (elements of maritime negligence claim)
- Maxwell v. Hapag-Lloyd Aktiengesellschaft, Hamburg, 862 F.2d 767 (9th Cir.) (duty to avoid creating unusual swells)
- U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Dizona, 594 F.3d 408 (5th Cir.) (admissibility of business records and qualified witness)