Czyzykowski v. F/V Ocean View, Inc., Case No.: 3:15-cv-02018-BRM-LHG
| Decision Date | 31 October 2019 |
| Docket Number | Case No.: 3:15-cv-02018-BRM-LHG |
| Parties | KRZYSZTOS CZYZYKOWSKI, et al. Plaintiffs, v. F/V OCEAN VIEW, INC., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Before this Court are Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 117 & 118) filed by Defendants Satellite Crane, LLC ("Satellite Crane") and Sea Watch International, Ltd. ("Sea Watch"), respectively. Plaintiffs Krzysztos Czyzykowski ("Czyzykowski") and Marzena Czyzykowski ("Czyzykowski's Wife"), as well as Defendants Jeffrey Simmons t/a Star-Link Services ("Simmons"), F/V Ocean View, Inc. ("F/V Ocean View") and TMT Clam Dredgers, Inc. ("TMT Clam Dredgers") oppose both motions. (ECF No. 120, 121-1, 122, 124.) Satellite Crane opposes Sea Watch's motion. (ECF No. 123.) Having reviewed the parties' submissions filed in connection with the motions and having heard oral argument on August 20, 2019 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(a), for the reasons set forth below and for good cause having been shown, both Satellite Crane's and Sea Watch's Motions for Summary Judgment are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
This case arises out of a night-time, dock-side crane accident in which Czyzykowski, a seaman, was injured while he assisted with the unloading of large cages of clams from the fishing vessel E.S.S. Pursuit. (ECF No. 118-18 ¶ 1.) F/V Ocean View owns the Pursuit. (ECF No. 123-4 ¶ 3.) F/V Ocean View and TMT Clam Dredgers operate the Pursuit pursuant to a bareboat charter agreement. TMT Clam Dredgers employed Czyzykowski as a crew member on the Pursuit. (ECF No. 123-4 ¶ 6.) Sea Watch, a Maryland-based seafood company, operates the dock on which Czyzykowski's injury occurred, as well as an adjacent seafood processing plant. (ECF No. 118-10 ¶¶ 2-4.) Sea Watch undertakes certain "responsibilit[ies] with regard to unloading of clams at the facility"—namely, "to make sure the clams are unloaded in a timely fashion, and that they are moved into the facility in a timely fashion, and to ensure that company guidelines with regard to the proper handling of seafood are followed." (ECF No. 118-10 ¶ 7.) Most Sea Watch employees work only inside the processing plant, but Sea Watch employs forklift operators who move clam cages from the dock into the processing plant. (ECF No. 118-10 ¶ 6.)
Sea Watch uses Satellite Crane to operate the cranes when fishing vessels come to the dock to unload cargo. (ECF No. 118-10 ¶¶ 9-11.) According to their contract, Sea Watch required Satellite Crane to provide crane operation service for one crane on 30-minutes notice and operation for a second crane on 60-minutes notice. (ECF No. 118-12, at 2.) While Satellite Crane provided the crane operators, Sea Watch owned and provided the cranes on site; Satellite Crane did not use its own cranes. (ECF No. 118-10 ¶ 8; ECF No. 118-14, at 106:14-23.) Sea Watch prohibited Satellite Crane from using its cranes for Satellite Crane's own use and required Satellite Crane to use Sea Watch's cranes "as directed." (ECF No. 118-14, at 107:11-23.) Notwithstanding Sea Watch's control over its cranes, Sea Watch required Satellite Crane both to conduct maintenance on the cranes, including greasing, lubricating, and maintaining fuel engine oil levels, and to provide other, ancillary crane services "at the instructions of Sea Watch." (ECF No. 118-14, at 108:4-17, 175:21-25.) Sea Watch, however, provided the hooks used by the cranes for lifting the clam cages—hooks that one expert testified had an unreasonable, dangerous design that contributed to Czyzykowski's injury, when reasonable, less dangerous hooks were commercially available. (ECF No. 120-4, Ex. W, at 6-7.) Satellite Crane is entitled to an office on Sea Watch's premises, but Sea Watch exercises dominion and control over that office space. (ECF No. 118-14, at 113:20-114:23.)
Satellite Crane, in turn, uses Simmons to cover crane operation services when Satellite Crane is unable to do so. (ECF No. 118-13, at 1.) A licensed crane operator, Simmons earned the appropriate state-issued licenses by passing multiple tests after taking classes with both a classroom component, a hands-on, crane-operation component, and a safety education component. (ECF No. 117-9, at 15:7-22, 21:19-23:3.) In addition to his licensing training, Simmons spent an additional 40 hours—including 4 hours of supervised training for working at night—over the course of a month to train to use the specific crane at the Sea Watch dock. (ECF No. 117-9, at 90:2-91:14.)
Following his training, Satellite Crane required Simmons to provide crane operations services "in an on-call manner." (ECF No. 118-13, at 1.) Simmons's "minimum" hours requirement was to be "on call" for three 12-hour shifts and two 6-hour shifts every week, and "[a]dditional service hours may be requested." (ECF No. 118-13, at 1.) Satellite Crane required Simmons to be available on 30-minutes notice. (ECF No. 118-13, at 1.) When working, Simmons was responsible for completing certain required paperwork. (ECF No. 118-13, at 1.) Satellite Crane required Simmons to insure both Satellite Crane and Sea Watch (at Simmons's expense), with Satellite Crane dictating the types of insurance as well as the acceptable liability limits and deductibles, and retaining veto power over Simmons's choice of insurers. (ECF No. 118-13, at 3.) If Simmons sought to obtain replacement coverage for his crane operation services, Satellite Crane and Sea Watch both could exercise veto power over any replacement crane operator. (ECF No. 118-13, at 3.) Satellite Crane restricted Simmons's movements while at work, prohibiting Simmons from entering Sea Watch's processing plant for any purpose except to use the restroom. (ECF No. 118-13, at 3.)
Simmons operated the crane at the time of Czyzykowski's injury. (ECF No. 118-18 ¶ 1.) Although Czyzykowski suffered his injury from the crane, testimony in the record indicates that one of Sea Watch's forklift operators may have contributed to Czyzykowski's injury. Simmons testified that a Sea Watch forklift operator was out on the dock at the time of the injury and "spooked" Czyzykowski, causing Czyzykowski to react in a way that inadvertently mimicked the signal for Simmons to lift thecrane boom—which Simmons did, injuring Czyzykowski's hand in the process. (ECF No. 123-12, at 11:9-20, 42:17-43:5, 54:3-15.) Czyzykowski's crew mate Ivanov Pavel testified that in the immediate aftermath of the injury, Czyzykowski explained that the injury occurred when Sea Watch's forklift driver came too close to Czyzykowski. (ECF No. 123-13, at 11:18-12:2.) Czyzykowski testified he had never seen so many clam cages accumulate on the dock without having been removed to the processing plant by the forklift—a situation Czyzykowski described as dangerous both because there was insufficient room between cages for Czyzykowski to maneuver and because some cages would contact other cages, causing the cages to lose their balance and risk tipping over. (ECF No. 121-2, Ex. CC, at 55:15-19.)
Czyzykowski brought suit against his employer under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30104,1 and against a host of other entities under general maritime law, as well as a claim for maintenance and cure. (ECF No. 46 ¶¶ 16, 21.) Czyzykowski's Wife brought a claim "for loss of consortium and for past, present, and future financial losses" resulting from her husband's injury. (ECF No. 46 ¶ 19.) Satellite Crane and Sea Watch each moved for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 117 & 118.)
Summary judgment is appropriate "if 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 a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). A factual dispute is genuine only if there is "a sufficient evidentiary basis on which a reasonable jury could find for the non-moving party," and it is material only if it has the ability to "affect the outcome of the suit under governing law." Kaucher v. Cty. of Bucks, 455 F.3d 418, 423 (3d Cir. 2006); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Disputes over irrelevant or unnecessary facts will not preclude a grant of summary judgment. Id. at 248. "In considering a motionfor summary judgment, a district court may not make credibility determinations or engage in any weighing of the evidence; instead, the non-moving party's evidence 'is to be believed and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.'" Marino v. Indus. Crating Co., 358 F.3d 241, 247 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255)); see also Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, (1986); Curley v. Klem, 298 F.3d 271, 276-77 (3d Cir. 2002). "Summary judgment may not be granted . . . if there is a disagreement over what inferences can be reasonably drawn from the facts even if the facts are undisputed." Nathanson v. Med. Coll. of Pa., 926 F.2d 1368, 1380 (3rd Cir. 1991) (citing Gans v. Mundy, 762 F.2d 338, 340 (3d Cir.); Ideal Dairy Farms, Inc. v. John Labatt, Ltd., 90 F.3d 737, 744 (3d Cir. 1996).
The party moving for summary judgment has the initial burden of showing the basis for its motion. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). If the moving party bears the burden of persuasion at trial, summary judgment is appropriate only if the evidence is not susceptible to different interpretations or inferences by the trier of fact. Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541, 553 (1999). On the other hand, if the burden of persuasion at trial would be on the nonmoving party, the party moving for summary judgment may satisfy Rule 56's burden of production by either (1) "submit[ting] affirmative evidence that negates an essential element of the nonmoving party's claim" or (2) demonstrating "that the nonmoving party...
To continue reading
Request your trial