In re Complaint of Bridge Watersports, LLC

656 F.Supp.3d 553

In the MATTER OF the Complaint of Under the BRIDGE WATERSPORTS, LLC, as Owner of the 2001 Godfrey Marine Company 22'0" pontoon vessel Seeking Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability.

Civil Action No. GLR-20-1111

United States District Court, D. Maryland

Signed February 16, 2023

David A. Skomba, Miranda Russell, Franklin and Prokopik, PC, Baltimore, MD, for In the Matter of The Complaint of Under the Bridge Watersports, LLC, as Owner of the 2001 Godfrey Marine Company 22'0" pontoon vessel.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

George L. Russell, III, United States District Judge

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Complainant Under the Bridge Watersports, LLC's ("UTB") Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 66) and Claimants Michael Dorris and Christina Dorris, individually and as Parents and Next Friends of Nathaniel Dorris and Milena Dorris; Jennifer Tressler, individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Connor Tressler; and Logan Tressler, Luke Tressler, and Damon Schorr's (collectively, "Claimants") Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 67). The Motions are ripe for disposition, and no hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2021). For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant UTB's Motion for Summary Judgment and deny Claimants' Cross Motion for Summary Judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

On August 1, 2019, Claimants rented a 2001 Godfrey Marine Company 22' 0" pontoon vessel (the "Vessel") from UTB, which was owned by UTB during all times relevant to this dispute. (Compl. Seeking Exoneration or Limitation Liability ["Compl."] ¶¶ 2, 4, ECF No. 1). Claimants rented the Vessel for the purpose of "pleasure cruising and tubing." (Claimants' Mem. Pts. Auth. Supp. Cross Mot. Summ. J. & Opp'n Mot. Summ. J. ["Claimants' Cross Mot."] at 16, ECF No. 67-1).

Prior to boarding the Vessel, UTB provided Claimants with a "Participant Agreement, Release and Assumption of Risk" contract (the "Agreement"), among other paperwork. (UTB Mot. Ex. B ["Agmt."], ECF No. 66-4). Claimants Michael Dorris, Jr., Christina Dorris, and Jennifer Tressler (the "Adult Claimants") each signed the Agreement, which states, in pertinent part:

I hereby agree to release, indemnify, and discharge [UTB], on behalf of myself, my spouse, my children, my parents, my heirs, assigns, personal representative and estate . . . I acknowledge that my participation . . . entails known and unanticipated risks . . . . I expressly agree and promise to accept and assume all of risks existing in this activity . . . I hereby voluntarily release, forever discharge, and agree to indemnify and hold harmless [UTB] from any and all claims, demands, or causes of action, which are in any way connected with my participation in this activity or my use of [UTB's] equipment or facilities, including any such claims which allege negligent acts or omissions of [UTB] . . . . Should [UTB], or anyone acting on their behalf, be required to incur attorneys fees and costs to enforce this agreement, I agree to indemnify and hold them harmless for all such fees and costs . . . . By signing this document, I acknowledge that if anyone is hurt or property is damaged during my participation in this activity, I may be found by a court of law to have waived my right to maintain a lawsuit against [UTB] on the basis of any claim from which I have released them herein . . . . I have had sufficient opportunity to read this entire document. I have read and understood it, and I agree to be bound by its terms.

(Agmt. (emphasis in original)). The Adult Claimants also signed a portion of the Agreement entitled "Parent's or Guardian's Additional Indemnification" on behalf of the minors they accompanied on the Vessel. (Id.). Michael Dorris, the "designated operator," signed an additional agreement, which stated: "This person is LEGALLY responsible for the safe & legal operation of the vessel." (Release & Waiver at 2, ECF No. 66-6 (emphasis in original)).

The capacity plate affixed to the Vessel stated that it could carry up to sixteen persons or 2,270 lbs. (Cameron Michael Riley Tr. ["Riley Dep."] at 55:20-56:09, ECF No. 67-4). UTB employees selected the Vessel for Claimants based on the number of individuals in their group (fifteen) and did not consider the totality of their weight in making this decision. (Id. at 50:08-51:18). When Claimants boarded the Vessel, they felt "pretty tight," prompting Christina Dorris to seek assurance from UTB's dockhand that the Vessel was appropriate for the group, which he assured her it was. (Christina Dorris Tr. ["Christina Dorris Dep."] at 61:06-15, ECF No. 67-5). Before leaving UTB's dock, the dockhand provided Claimants with instructions concerning navigation and safety. (Id. at 61:16-21). Specifically, he instructed Claimants that if they became lodged on a sandbar, they should "turn the engine off, lift the propeller, get out, push off the sandbar, and get back in." (Id.). The act of raising or lowering the propeller of the motor is known as "trimming." (Transcript of Stephen B. Mason, AMS ["Mason Dep."] at 31:09-12, ECF No. 66-14).

Michael Dorris then sailed the Vessel then into the Chesapeake Bay with fourteen passengers, including the remaining Claimants. (Compl. ¶ 4). Claimants had no issue with the trim mechanism when the Vessel left the dock, (Christina Dorris Dep. at 72:01-06), but state that the Vessel became "so submerged" such that "both pontoons were actually submerged in the water . ." (Id. at 81:10-15).

During their voyage, Claimants anchored the Vessel for lunch and trimmed the propeller into the upright position. (Id. at 78:21-80:03). Before starting the engine again, they lowered it back into the water. (Id. at 80:04-08). At some point thereafter, the Vessel became unintentionally lodged on a sandbar. (Id. at 80:12-16). Claimants state that they followed the dockhand's instructions but were unable to trim the propeller back into the water once the Vessel was freed from the sandbar and therefore had no ability to power or navigate the Vessel. (Id. at 82:04-84:12).¹ The Vessel subsequently became caught in a strong current, was "pushed . . . right into the bridge," and capsized (the "Incident"). (Id. at 84:16-22). All fifteen passengers went overboard. (Id. at 87:02-03). Claimants describe the aftermath, including water entrapment, inability to find loved ones, chaos, [and] fear of imminent death and near drownings. (Id. at 86:04-87:03; Michael J. Dorris, Jr. Tr. ["Michael Dorris Dep."] at 55:15-59:07). The United States Coast Guard (the "Coast Guard") responded to the Incident and ensured that all of the Vessel's passengers had been retrieved from the water. (Michael Dorris Dep. at 59:12-60:15).

In the Complaint, UTB alleges that Incident occurred because Michael Dorris operated the Vessel "at an excessive rate of speed and fail[ed] to keep a safe lookout." (Compl. ¶ 5). In opposition, Claimants assert that the Vessel became stuck on the sandbar because it was overweight at the time of the Incident. (Verified Claims Resp'ts ["Claims"] ¶¶ 4-8, ECF No. 11).

B. Expert Evidence

Claimants hired Stephen B. Mason to provide expert testimony in support of their claim for damages. (See generally Mason Report at 4, ECF No. 67-8). Mason handles insurance claims and performs risk inspections for major watercraft insurance carriers. (Id. at 1-2). Mason's company prepared an expert report for this matter after reviewing "the pleadings, witnesses, police reports (DNR), photos of the vessel, the passenger list, vessel ownership record, [ ] research pertaining to the vessel[']s data, and its limitations as per the U.S. Coast Guard." (Id. at 4). Mason did not examine the wreckage of the Vessel, nor did he speak with Coast Guard or Maryland Department of Natural Resources ("DNR") personnel. (Mason Dep. at 37:03-16) (stating that, prior to the deposition, he spoke only to counsel for Claimants about the Incident).

In his expert report, Mason states that "it is obvious from the police report that the vessel was overloaded for routine or normal use" and that "based on the photographs of the passengers and vessel, we feel that the vessel was grossly overweight and poorly loaded." (Mason Report at 5). In addition, Mason's report concludes: "There is no room for error and the overloading of the vessel coupled with mechanical problems and failures lead directly to the accident." (Id.). He also notes that "when the vessel[']s engine failed it collided with the bridge structure, this then caused the overloaded vessel to list, overturn, and sink." (Id.).

Mason expanded on this report in his December 7, 2021 deposition testimony. (See generally Mason Dep.). Despite the statement in his report that the accident was caused by the Vessel's overweight condition "coupled with" the trim failure, Mason testified that the failure of the trim mechanism would have left the Vessel just as much at the mercy of the current with only one passenger as it was with fifteen passengers aboard. (Id. at 40:16-41:01). Mason also confirmed that a vessel can experience a mechanical failure during a voyage for various reasons, (id. at 38:19-39:04), and that because the trim mechanism is "an electrically driven hydraulic pump," it could have failed as a result of battery issues, connection issues, or a lack of hydraulic fluid, (id. at 41:02-10). However, he did not provide an opinion as to why the trim mechanism failed in this particular instance. (Id. at 41:11-16).

C. Procedural History

UTB filed this limitation action on April 30, 2020, seeking to limit its liability or exoneration following the Incident. (See generally Compl.). On May 13, 2020, Claimants filed their Answer, (ECF No. 6), and on November 16, 2020, Claimants filed their Verified Claims, seeking compensation for the physical and emotional injuries they sustained from the Incident, (see generally Claims).

On December 7, 2020, UTB filed its Answer to the Verified Claims and a Counterclaim against Dorris and...