[ad_1]
U.S. District Court
Where a plaintiff employee of the town of Sandwich brought suit over an injury he sustained when the defendants docked their boat, a motion by the defendants for leave to file a third-party complaint against the town should be denied because the defendants’ proposed third-party claims are futile.
“This case presents itself to the Court upon troubled waters. Plaintiff Andrew Bader (‘Plaintiff’) brings this negligence action against Defendants James Watson (‘Watson’) and Phylis Nixon Bosomworth (‘Bosomworth’) after an accident that occurred when Defendants sought to dock their boat while Plaintiff worked at the Town of Sandwich Marina (‘the Marina’). Defendants seek leave to file a Third-Party Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 9(h) and 14(c) against the Town of Sandwich. …
“… On August 6, 2021, at around 3:15PM, Watson and Bosomworth approached the Marina in a 1990 Grand Banks 46-foot cruiser owned by Watson named the Castoff (the ‘Castoff’). …
“As the boat approached the dock, Bosomworth threw a dock line to Plaintiff. … Plaintiff alleges that Bosomworth ‘threw the wrong end’ of the dock line (the eye end) and that Plaintiff ‘instructed … Bosomworth [to] provide him with the correct end’ (the bitter end) of the dock line. … As he tied the vessel, the Castoff lurched away from the dock, ‘causing the dock-line to become taut,’ entangling Plaintiff’s finger. … The dock line ‘amputated a portion of [Plaintiff]’s ring finger’ on his right hand. … In the aftermath of this accident, Plaintiff underwent two surgeries to repair his ring finger and ‘faces the possibility of a third surgery.’ …
“Defendants seek to implead the Town of Sandwich for both express and implied Contractual Indemnification, as well as General Maritime Law Indemnification and Contribution. …
“… To determine whether maritime jurisdiction applies to a tort, it must satisfy both the ‘location’ and ‘connection’ requirements, as outlined by the Supreme Court. … The location or ‘situs’ test determines ‘whether the tort occurred on navigable water or whether the injury suffered on land was caused by a vessel on navigable water.’ … The connection or ‘nexus’ test has two parts: first, the Court must assess the ‘general features of the type of incident involved’ and determine whether it has a ‘potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce.’ … The second part of the connection test determines whether the ‘general character of the activity giving rise to the incident shows a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity.’ … Maritime jurisdiction in this tort action will only exist if both the location and connection tests are satisfied. …
“Plaintiff suffered the injury to his ring finger when the Castoff’s dock line entangled his finger after lurching away from the dock. … While piers and docks are thought to be extensions of land, when a victim is injured on a dock and the injury is caused by a vessel on navigable waters, admiralty law can be sustained. … The pleadings clearly demonstrate that the accident ‘was caused by a vessel on navigable water.’ … Thus, the location test is readily satisfied. …
“In addition to the location test, the connection test has two parts that must be satisfied for maritime law to apply. The first part of the location test requires the Court to describe the incident at an ‘intermediate level of possible generality.’ … The Court asks ‘whether the incident could be seen within a class of incidents that posed more than a fanciful risk to commercial shipping.’ … The Court finds that the general features of this case — the alleged improper securing of a boat causing injury — could potentially have a disruptive impact of maritime commerce. …
“In the accident before us, Plaintiff was unable to properly secure the Castoff as a result of being given the wrong end of the dock line. In the subsequent events, his finger was partially amputated, presumably preventing him from securing other incoming vessels. Additionally, while not raised by the parties, the Court takes judicial notice that the Town of Sandwich Marina has 42 commercial slips available. This creates an additional possibility that an incident of this kind could have a ‘potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce.’ …
“… The alleged tortious act in the original action took place on a vessel in navigable waters. More specifically, the alleged tort took place during the attempted securing of the Castoff at ‘a marina on navigable waters.’ … Therefore, the Court finds that activity giving rise to the incident shows a ‘substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity.’ …
“With the location and connection tests both satisfied, the Court determines that federal maritime law applies to the action at hand. …
“In their proposed Third-Party complaint, Defendants bring claims for implied and express contractual indemnification as well as a claim for General Maritime Law Indemnification. …
“In admiralty law, there are three types of indemnity that a party may assert: (1) express contractual indemnity, (2) indemnity implied from the nature of the relationship between parties, and (3) tort-based indemnity. …
“… In this instant case, however, the Third-Party Plaintiffs point to no express contract to begin with, let alone one with indemnification provisions. Therefore, the claim for indemnification under maritime law cannot advance on an express contractual indemnification theory. …
“Third-Party Plaintiffs have failed to ‘proffer evidence’ that demonstrates any special relationship between them and the Town of Sandwich. They have not pointed to any specific conditions that indicate that it was the parties’ intent to have the Town indemnify Third-Party Plaintiffs on an implied basis. Absent any pleadings alleging a special relationship, the Court will decline to find an implied right to indemnification. …
“… In the case at hand, Plaintiff brings only claims of direct negligence against Defendants. Plaintiff does not allege that these Defendants were merely vicariously liable. Therefore, if Plaintiff succeeds in holding Watson and Bosomworth liable, they would not be ‘non-negligent or vicariously liable tortfeasor[s]’ and tort-based indemnity against the Town could not apply. …
“Since the Court has determined that all the proposed third-party claims that Defendants have attempted to anchor to the Town of Sandwich are futile, it denies their motion to leave to file a third-party complaint against the Town of Sandwich.”
Bader v. Watson, et al. v. Town of Sandwich (Lawyers Weekly No. 02-555-24) (13 pages) (Guzman, J.) (Docket No. 4:23-cv-11354-MRG) (Nov. 26, 2024).
[ad_2]
Source link