747 F.Supp.3d 931
E.D. La.2024Background
- Blaine Parfait, a painter/foreman employed by Coating Services, Inc., alleged he was injured in November 2020 after falling through an unguarded open hatch aboard a vessel at a Swiftships shipyard.
- The accident allegedly resulted from a Swiftships employee opening a deck hatch and failing to provide warnings or barricades.
- Parfait sued Swiftships in federal court, asserting negligence under general maritime law, particularly failure to warn of the hazard.
- Swiftships moved for summary judgment, arguing it owed no duty to warn as the hatch was an open and obvious hazard to an experienced worker like Parfait.
- Parfait countered that factual disputes existed as to whether the hazard was open and obvious, specifically due to the location of the Swiftships employee, possibly obstructing his view.
- The court denied Swiftships' motion, finding material factual disputes and that the "open and obvious" defense (from vessel-owner cases) did not apply to non-vessel owner third parties like Swiftships.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to warn of open hatch | Swiftships owed a duty; view of hazard was obstructed | No duty—hazard was open/obvious to experienced worker | Swiftships owed a duty of ordinary care; factual dispute precludes summary judgment |
| Applicability of vessel-owner "open/obvious" defense | Defense only applies to vessel owners, not non-vessel third-parties | Analogy to vessel owners; no duty when danger is open/obvious | Vessel owner duties do not extend to non-vessel owners in this context |
| Existence of factual disputes | Parfait's view may have been blocked; parties dispute positions | Parfait's own testimony shows he was aware of open hatches | Genuine factual dispute exists; summary judgment denied |
| Foreseeability of injury | Hazard was not reasonably visible, thus foreseeable risk | No argument specifically on foreseeability | Factual issues remain on foreseeability |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., LLC, 624 F.3d 201 (5th Cir. 2010) (ordinary care applies under maritime law; duty, breach, causation, and injury are the elements)
- Couch v. Cro-Marine Transport, Inc., 44 F.3d 319 (5th Cir. 1995) (Scindia vessel-owner duties do not apply to non-vessel third parties)
- Consol. Aluminum Corp. v. C.F. Bean Corp., 833 F.2d 65 (5th Cir. 1987) (scope of duty depends on foreseeability of the harm)