Johnston v. Green Shipping Co. NV

515 F.Supp.3d 1378

Ellen Buice JOHNSTON, Plaintiff,

v.GREEN SHIPPING COMPANY NV; and Seatrade Shipmanagement BV, Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 4:20-cv-30

United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Savannah Division.

Signed January 15, 2021

Brent J. Savage, Samuel LeCraw Mikell, Savage, Turner, Durham, Pinckney & Savage, Savannah, GA, for Plaintiff.

Colin A. McRae, HunterMacLean, PC, Savannah, GA, for Defendants.

ORDER

R. STAN BAKER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

In this negligence action, Plaintiff Ellen Buice Johnston seeks to recover for shoulder and back injuries she allegedly suffered while working on Defendants’ vessel as a boarding agent in the Port of Savannah. (Doc. 1-3, pp. 4–8.) The matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, in which she seeks judgment as a matter of law in her favor on the issue of liability (but not damages) and attorney's fees pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 13-6-11. (Doc. 19.) Defendants Green Shipping Company NV and Seatrade Shipmanagement BV jointly filed a Response, (doc. 24), and Amended Answers, (docs. 27, 28). In their Response and their Amended Answers, Defendants concede they breached the duty they owed to Plaintiff, but they deny that their negligence caused her claimed injuries. (See docs. 24, 27, 28.) Defendants also deny that Plaintiff is entitled to attorney's fees as a matter of law. (Id. ) For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (Doc. 19.)

BACKGROUND

On June 13, 2019,¹ Plaintiff was working as a boarding agent for ships docking in the Port of Savannah when the vessel at issue in this case, the M/V Seatrade Green (the "Vessel"), arrived at the Port.² (Doc. 27, p. 3; doc. 28, p. 2.) Defendant Green Shipping owned the Vessel, and Defendant Seatrade acted as the Vessel's ship manager.

(Doc. 25, p. 1.) After the Vessel docked, the crew began setting up its two-tiered gangway from the Vessel to the dock. (Doc. 19-7, p. 1; doc. 25, p. 1.) While the gangway's top tier is stationary, the bottom tier rolls out to the dock. (Doc. 19-7, p. 2; doc. 25, p. 2.) After the crew set up the gangway, which was in good condition and operating normally, the Vessel's third officer went down the gangway and escorted Plaintiff, who had been waiting on the dock, up the gangway. (Doc. 19-7, pp. 2–3; doc. 25, p. 2.) As Plaintiff transitioned from the bottom tier of the gangway to the next stage, the gangway rolled out from underneath her, forcing her to cling to the handrails to avoid falling. (Doc. 19-7, p. 3; doc. 25, p. 2.) It is undisputed that this occurred because a crew member began adjusting the gangway's angle while Plaintiff was still on it. (Doc. 19-7, p. 3; doc. 25, p. 2.) Despite having standard procedures requiring otherwise, the crew member did not check to see if anyone was on the gangway before adjusting it, nor did he warn Plaintiff that he was going to adjust it. (Doc. 19-7, pp. 3–4; doc. 25, p. 2.) During their depositions, the Vessel's captain, chief officer, third officer, and the crew member who moved the gangway all conceded that Plaintiff did nothing wrong during the incident. (Doc. 19-7, pp. 3–4; doc. 25, p. 2.)

According to Plaintiff, she suffered injuries to both of her shoulders and her lower back when she had to grab onto the handrails of the top tier of the gangway to avoid falling. (Doc. 19, p. 1.) On January 7, 2020, she filed this action in the State Court of Chatham County under the Savings to Suitors clause of 28 U.S.C. § 1333, the admiralty jurisdiction statute, seeking damages for the injuries she suffered during the June 13, 2019, incident (hereinafter, the "Incident").³ (Doc. 1-3, pp. 4–5.) On February 12, 2020, Defendants removed the case to this Court based on diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. 1, p. 2.) Defendants then filed Answers, (docs. 9, 10), and—just prior to the close of the discovery period—Plaintiff filed her Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, (doc. 19). Defendants filed a Response to the Motion, (doc. 24), and they also obtained leave to file Amended Answers, (docs. 27, 28).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment "shall" be granted "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). "A fact is ‘material’ if it ‘might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.’ " FindWhat Inv'r Grp. v. FindWhat.com, 658 F.3d 1282, 1307 (11th Cir. 2011) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) ). A dispute is "genuine" if the "evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id.

The moving party bears the burden of establishing that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Williamson Oil Co. v. Philip Morris USA, 346 F.3d 1287, 1298 (11th Cir. 2003). Specifically, the moving party must identify the portions of the record which establish that there are no "genuine dispute[s] as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Moton v. Cowart, 631 F.3d 1337, 1341 (11th Cir. 2011). When the nonmoving party would have the burden of proof at trial, the moving party may discharge his burden by showing that the record lacks evidence to support the nonmoving party's case or that the nonmoving party would be unable to prove his case at trial. See id. (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322–23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) ). If the moving party discharges this burden, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to go beyond the pleadings and present affirmative evidence to show that a genuine issue of fact does exist. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 257, 106 S.Ct. 2505.

In determining whether a summary judgment motion should be granted, a court must view the record and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Peek-A-Boo Lounge of Bradenton, Inc. v. Manatee Cnty., 630 F.3d 1346, 1353 (11th Cir. 2011) (citing Rodriguez v. Sec'y for Dep't of Corr., 508 F.3d 611, 616 (11th Cir. 2007) ). However, "facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party only if there is a ‘genuine’ dispute as to those facts." Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007). "[T]he mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact." Id.

DISCUSSION

In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that "Defendants had substantial control and oversight of its [sic] officers, crew members and vessel equipment on board the [Vessel], and breached its [sic] duty to Plaintiff ... by failing to exercise reasonable care in operating the vessel equipment." (Doc. 1-3, p. 6.) She alleges that this negligence caused injuries to her shoulders and lumbar spine and that she is entitled to recover damages for the resulting medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and permanent impairment. (Id. at pp. 6–7.) She also claims entitlement to attorney's fees and expenses under O.C.G.A. § 13-6-11 because Defendants have acted in bad faith, have been stubbornly litigious, and/or have caused her unnecessary trouble and expense. (Id. at p. 7.)

In her Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Plaintiff argues that she is entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability and also that she is entitled to an award of attorney's fees and expenses pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 13-6-11. (Doc. 19, p. 1.) The Court addresses each claim in turn.

I. Plaintiff's Negligence Claim

"Maritime law governs actions arising from alleged torts committed aboard a ship sailing in navigable waters." Guevara v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., 920 F.3d 710, 720 (11th Cir. 2019) ; see also Minott v. M/Y BRUNELLO, 891 F.3d 1277, 1283 (11th Cir. 2018) ("Minott clearly alleged a maritime tort [because] [t]he incident ‘occurred on navigable water’ .... Although Minott was not yet aboard the vessel when the gangway collapsed, ‘[i]t is well established that traditional maritime law encompasses the gangway.’ "). "In analyzing a maritime tort case, [federal courts] rely on general principles of negligence law." Guevara, 920 F.3d at 720 (quoting Chaparro v. Carnival Corp., 693 F.3d 1333, 1336 (11th Cir. 2012) ). Thus, "[t]o prevail on a negligence claim, a plaintiff must show that ‘(1) the defendant had a duty to protect the plaintiff from a particular injury, (2) the defendant breached that duty, (3) the breach actually and proximately caused the plaintiff's injury, and (4) the plaintiff suffered actual harm.’ " Id. (quoting Chaparro, 693 F.3d at 1336 ).

Plaintiff asserts that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact regarding Defendants’ liability for the injuries she sustained during the Incident. (Doc. 19, pp. 5–7.) Specifically, she claims there is no dispute that Defendants owned, operated, directed, and crewed the Vessel and that Defendants had a duty to ensure that their employees would not move or adjust the gangway while Plaintiff was on it. (Id. at p. 6.) Plaintiff further contends that Defendants breached their duty to her because "[t]he evidence is indisputable that a crew member moved the gangway" while she was on it. (Id. ) Finally, Plaintiff asserts that there is no dispute that Defendants’ breach of their duty to her was the actual and proximate cause of the shoulder and back injuries she allegedly sustained. (Id. at pp. 6–7.)

In their Response, Defendants concede that they owed a duty to exercise reasonable care to Plaintiff under the circumstances and that they breached that duty when their crew member adjusted the gangway while Plaintiff was traversing it. (Doc. 24, pp. 1–3.) Defendants also filed Amended Answers conceding that the Incident occurred as a...