Churchwell v. Bluegrass Marine, Inc.

• Decision Date: 21 April 2006
• Docket Number: No. 05-5185.,05-5185.
• Citation: 444 F.3d 898
• Parties: Glenda CHURCHWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BLUEGRASS MARINE, INC., Marquette Transportation Co., Inc., and Motor Vessel Marie Hendrick, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

444 F.3d 898

Glenda CHURCHWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BLUEGRASS MARINE, INC., Marquette Transportation Co., Inc., and Motor Vessel Marie Hendrick, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 05-5185.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted: March 15, 2006.

Decided and Filed: April 21, 2006.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

ARGUED: Bobby R. Miller, Jr., Gault, Marshall & Miller, Paducah, Kentucky, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: John J. Osterhage, Lawrence & Schletker, Warsaw, Kentucky, for Appellant. Bobby R. Miller, Jr., E. Spivey Gault, Gault, Marshall & Miller, Paducah, Kentucky, for Appellees.

Before: MARTIN and CLAY, Circuit Judges; SARGUS, District Judge.^*

OPINION

CLAY, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff, Glenda Churchwell, appeals an order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants, Bluegrass Marine, Inc., Marquette Transportation Company Inc., and Motor Vessel Marie Hendrick, and dismissing Plaintiff's claims of 1) unseaworthiness in violation of general maritime law, and 2) negligence in violation of the Jones Act. For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE the district court's dismissal of Plaintiff's claims.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff's personal injury claims arise out of an accident that occurred aboard Defendants' ship, the Marie Hendrick, on May 9, 2002, where Plaintiff was employed as a cook. Plaintiff was cleaning the kitchen after having served the crew breakfast. She poured grease from a skillet into a coffee can. According to Plaintiff, a crewman named Larry had instructed her that the grease must be kept in the coffee can. Plaintiff then picked up the coffee can to place it back in its corner. She picked up the can by its rim using her right hand and placing her thumb in the interior of the can while placing remainder of her hand on the outside of the can. Apparently, the inside of the can was greasy, and the can slipped from Plaintiff's fingers. The can hit the counter and fell onto the floor. The grease, which was not hot, landed on the counter, Plaintiff, and the smooth, solid floor mat on which Plaintiff was standing. Plaintiff took one step backwards and slipped in the grease on the floor. Plaintiff sustained back injuries from her fall.

According to Plaintiff, she would not have dropped the grease can if she had been allowed to place it in a container with handles, and she would not have slipped if the mat had contained holes to re-direct the grease. Plaintiff obtained the services of Dr. Huston,¹ an engineer, to support her argument that Defendants' failure to provide mats with holes ("grease mats") and a container with a handle created a dangerous work environment. Dr. Huston testified at his deposition that Defendants should have placed a grease mat in the kitchen because spills in a kitchen are foreseeable and unavoidable. Additionally, Dr. Huston testified that Defendants should have provided Plaintiff with a grease container that had a handle. According to Dr. Huston, grease containers with handles are commercially available. Finally, Dr. Huston testified that it was his opinion that Defendants' failure to provide grease mats and a container with a handle made Plaintiff's accident more likely. Specifically, a container with a handle would have decreased the likelihood of spills and a grease mat would have substantially decreased the likelihood of accidents from spilled liquid by containing and diverting the liquid.

Defendants moved in limine to exclude Dr. Huston's testimony. They argued that Dr. Huston's testimony improperly characterized their duties under the relevant law by implying that Defendants had a duty to provide an accident-free work place. Additionally, Defendants argued that Dr. Huston's testimony that safer alternatives existed, i.e., the grease mat and container with handle, was irrelevant to the issues in this case. According to Defendants, the existence of safer alternatives does not render the existing conditions unsafe.

That same day, Defendants moved for summary judgment. Defendants argued that the negligent manner in which Plaintiff picked up the grease container was the sole cause of Plaintiff's injuries. Defendants pointed to Dr. Huston's admission that if Plaintiff had picked up the container with two hands or if she had placed the container on a tray to move it that she would have been less likely to drop it. Thus, according to Defendants, summary judgment was proper because: (1) Defendants had not breached any duty by providing an unreasonably dangerous work environment; and (2) Plaintiff's own negligence was the proximate cause of her injuries rendering the primary duty rule a bar to Plaintiff's suit.

Plaintiff eventually responded to Defendants' motion for summary judgment but failed to respond to their motion in limine. Thus, the district court granted Defendants' motion in limine, holding that: (1) Dr. Huston's testimony that the Marie Hendrick's kitchen was unreasonably dangerous was an inadmissible legal conclusion; and (2) Dr. Huston's testimony regarding safer alternatives to the grease can and slippery mats was irrelevant. The district court also granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding that there was no evidence that Defendants had breached their duty of "ordinary prudence" under the Jones Act or that the Marie Hendrick was unseaworthy. The court reasoned that no similar mishaps had occurred in the past, Plaintiff failed to present evidence that the mats and grease container violated custom, and the danger from the grease was open and apparent. It further reasoned that Plaintiff's own negligence caused the accident. Finally, the district court rejected Plaintiff's maintenance and cure claim on the ground that Plaintiff was no longer capable of further recovery and any treatment would only serve to alleviate pain and suffering. Plaintiff now appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants on her unseaworthiness and Jones Act claims but not on her maintenance and cure claim.

II. DISCUSSION

The district court erred in granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff's unseaworthiness and Jones Act claims. Plaintiff presents sufficient evidence such that she could prevail on both claims at trial. Moreover, contrary to Defendants assertions, Plaintiff's own negligence does not provide an adequate basis on which to grant summary judgment. Maritime law espouses a system of comparative negligence, in which a plaintiff's own negligence does not bar recovery. The only exception to this rule is the primary duty doctrine, under which the employee responsible for maintaining safe conditions may not sue his employer for his own failure to maintain safe conditions. As the primary duty doctrine has no application in this case, Plaintiff's alleged negligence is not grounds for summary judgment. Therefore, we reverse the order of the district court, granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants.

A. Standard of Review

This Court reviews a district court order granting summary judgment de novo. Rannals v. Diamond Jo Casino, 265 F.3d 442, 447 (6th Cir.2001). Summary judgment is only proper where "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). In reviewing a grant of summary judgement, we draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Rannals, 265 F.3d at 447. "In particular, when we review a grant of summary judgment involving claims under the Jones Act, we are mindful of the policy of providing expansive remedies for seamen who are injured while acting in the course of their employment and recognize that the submission of Jones Act claims to a jury requires a very low evidentiary threshold." Id. (internal quotations omitted). Plaintiff must offer "more than a scintilla of evidence in order to create a jury question on the issue . . . but not much more." See Aparicio v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. 84 F.3d 803, 810 (6th Cir.1996) (addressing a FELA negligence claim).

B. Analysis

1. Dr. Huston's Testimony

As a threshold matter, we note that we may not consider Dr. Huston's testimony in determining whether Plaintiff demonstrates the existence of genuine issues of material fact. We conclude that we may not consider Dr. Huston's testimony because Plaintiff failed to preserve its admissibility for this Court's review. The district court excluded Dr. Huston's testimony in response to Defendants' motion in limine. Despite being given multiple opportunities in the district court to respond to Defendants' motion, Plaintiff failed to oppose the motion. Therefore, Plaintiff failed to preserve this issue for our review and we cannot now disregard the district court order excluding Dr. Huston's testimony. Barner v. Pilkington N. Am., 399 F.3d 745, 749 (6th Cir.2005) (holding that a party must alert the trial court to the legal basis for the admission of evidence in order preserve the right to appeal the trial court's exclusion of evidence).

2. Plaintiff's Unseaworthiness Claim

The district court erred in granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff's unseaworthiness claim because Plaintiff offered sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to each element of her unseaworthiness claim.

a. The Doctrine of Seaworthiness

A ship owner is strictly liable for personal injuries caused by his or her vessel's "unseaworthiness." Mitchell v. Trawler Racer, Inc., 362 U.S. 539, 549, 80 S.Ct. 926, 4 L.Ed.2d 941 (1960). A vessel is unseaworthy if the vessel and its appurtenances are not "reasonably fit for their intended use." Mitchell, 362 U.S. at 550, 80 S.Ct. 926. Defective gear, an unfit or understaffed crew, or the use of an improper...