Vandermeer v. M/V Charazz
4:15-cv-00153
E.D.N.C.Sep 25, 2017Background
- Sea-trial on Feb. 2, 2013 of vessel MN SIP'N'TIME (later MN CHARAZZ) during pre-purchase inspection; buyer Rasmussen hired marine surveyor Albert G. Vandermeer.
- Vessel owned by Wilton Carlyle Gay; Gay retained Grand Slam Yacht & Boat Sales and James Hinds to broker sale; Gay authorized Hinds to operate vessel for the sea-trial.
- During the trial Hinds steered; after successful instrument checks the boat "ran hard aground," decelerating from ~30–35 knots to a stop; Vandermeer fell down the companionway and sustained severe, permanent injuries.
- Vandermeer sued in federal court under admiralty and maritime law for negligence; Gay moved for summary judgment asserting (inter alia) North Carolina law applies and that Vandermeer failed to plead negligence against Gay as vessel owner.
- Court considered choice of law, pleading sufficiency, and whether genuine issues of material fact remained for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Choice of law: admiralty vs. North Carolina law | Case pleaded as admiralty; Rule 9(h) and admiralty statutes invoked | Argued complaint pleads a state-law negligence claim and state law should apply | Court held federal admiralty law governs; complaint identifies admiralty jurisdiction and statutes cited |
| Pleading sufficiency: can Vandermeer recover against Gay as owner without pleading that specific theory | Vandermeer's complaint gave adequate notice of negligence claim against defendants; need not plead specific legal theory | Gay argued Vandermeer failed to plead negligence against owner specifically, barring owner liability | Court held plaintiff not required to plead specific legal theory; complaint provided sufficient notice; Gay not barred from owner liability claim |
| Summary judgment: whether Gay is entitled to judgment as matter of law | Vandermeer argued liability clear under admiralty and sought partial summary judgment (procedural defect) | Gay argued no genuine dispute of material fact and sought summary judgment | Court denied Gay's motion: genuine issues of material fact exist (relationship between Hinds and Gay; location/circumstances of grounding; owner liability; whether Hinds was a pilot) |
| Procedural: Vandermeer's request for partial summary judgment | Vandermeer characterized liability as clear and sought judgment in opening of response | Gay opposed; court noted procedural requirements for motions | Court denied Vandermeer's request as it was not properly made as a motion and, in any event, genuine issues of fact precluded summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (establishes federal courts apply state substantive law generally)
- Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625 (owner's duty of care to noncrew persons aboard vessel under admiralty)
- E. River S.S. Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval, Inc., 476 U.S. 858 (federal courts apply admiralty substantive law when sitting in admiralty)
- Fed. Marine Terminals, Inc. v. Burnside Shipping Co., 394 U.S. 404 (shipowner's duty of reasonable care to invited persons aboard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment/genuine issue standard)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden-shifting principles)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (nonmoving party must present specific facts showing genuine issue)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standards; courts focus on factual allegations rather than legal labels)