54 F. Supp. 3d 586
E.D. La.2014Background
- Great Lakes hired Dawn (two tugs: M/V COASTAL DAWN and M/V PACIFIC DAWN) to tow and support the dredge TEXAS during a restoration project in Louisiana.
- On March 16–17, 2012, Great Lakes survey crew (site managers Riehl and Pearse and dredge captain Cisneros) chose an anchoring location, recorded GPS coordinates, and directed the tugs to move the dredge there.
- After the dredge was positioned, its ladder and cutterhead were lowered to stabilize it and allegedly ruptured Plaintiffs’ submerged oil pipeline.
- Plaintiffs sued Great Lakes and Dawn for negligence under maritime law; Dawn moved for summary judgment arguing the "dominant mind" doctrine absolves the tugs and, alternatively, that Great Lakes’ actions were the supervening cause.
- Evidence: deposition testimony shows survey crew/dredge captain selected the location and instructed tugs; Plaintiffs’ expert opined tugs failed to control speed but did not inspect vessels or personnel; declarations by one tug captain were stricken for unfairness (no deposition/cross-examination).
- Court found record shows the tow (dredge/Great Lakes personnel) was the dominant mind and granted Dawn summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the tugs are liable under the "dominant mind" doctrine | Tugs were part of decision/control; expert says tugs failed to control speed and agreed to lowering cutterhead | Tug acted only at tow's direction; tow (dredge/Great Lakes) exercised control over location and anchoring decisions | Tow (Great Lakes/dredge) was dominant mind; tugs not liable; summary judgment for Dawn |
| Admissibility of captain declarations | (Plaintiffs) Declarations submitted without opportunity for cross-examination are prejudicial | Dawn relied on declarations to support lack of tug liability | Court struck declarations of Captain Mehl as unfair absent deposition/cross-exam |
| Whether disputed facts preclude summary judgment | Plaintiffs point to expert opinion creating factual dispute about tug conduct and navigation rules | Dawn points to depositions showing tow chose location and no evidence tugs failed to exercise reasonable care | Court found Plaintiffs failed to identify material factual dispute sufficient to defeat summary judgment |
| Whether tug conduct was a supervening cause | Plaintiffs suggest tugs’ actions caused rupture | Dawn argues tow’s decisions caused the harm | Court did not reach supervening-cause argument after finding tow was dominant mind |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Progress Marine Inc., 632 F.2d 893 (5th Cir. 1980) (discusses placing liability on vessel in control of flotilla)
- Dow Chem. Co. v. Tug Thomas Allen, 349 F. Supp. 1354 (E.D. La. 1972) (tug supplying motive power is generally the dominant mind and owes navigation duties)
- Marathon Pipe Line Co. v. Rowan/Odessa Drilling Rig, 527 F. Supp. 824 (E.D. La. 1981) (tow may be solely liable when negligent act is attributable to tow)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard: nonmovant must show specific facts creating genuine dispute)
- RSR Corp. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 612 F.3d 851 (5th Cir. 2010) (conclusory allegations and speculation cannot defeat summary judgment)