Rodriguez v. Torres, CIVIL NO. 11-1602 (MEL)

• Decision Date: 13 March 2015
• Docket Number: CIVIL NO. 11-1602 (MEL)
• Parties: BERNADINO SANTOS RODRIGUEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. RAUL VIERA TORRES, et al. Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico

BERNADINO SANTOS RODRIGUEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. RAUL VIERA TORRES, et al. Defendants.

CIVIL NO. 11-1602 (MEL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

March 13, 2015

OPINION AND ORDER

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On June 14, 2012 Bernardino Santos Rodríguez ("Santos"), minor G.S.G, minor F.S.G., Gregory Santos, and Milagro López (collectively "plaintiffs") filed second amended complaint pursuant to P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31, § 5141 ("Article 1802"), claiming both diversity and maritime jurisdiction and alleging a cause of action for negligence against Raúl Viera-Torres ("Viera") and Marcelo Colón López ("Colón"), as well as Cooperativa de Seguros Múltiples de Puerto Rico ("Cooperativa"), as insurer of Viera and Colón, and for products liability against defendant SeaStar Solutions, formerly known as Teleflex Canada, Ltd. ("SeaStar" or "defendant"). ECF No. 82. Co-plaintiffs minor G.S.G, minor F.S.G., Gregory Santos, and Milagro López are all family relatives of Santos (the "Santos Family Members"). ECF Nos. 156, ¶ 2; 162, ¶ 2. On August 16, 2012 plaintiffs moved to voluntarily dismiss all claims against Viera, Colón, and Cooperativa, and on September 25, 2012 the court entered partial judgment dismissing all claims against them with prejudice. ECF Nos. 85, 88. Pending before the court is a motion for summary judgment filed by SeaStar, plaintiffs' response in opposition, SeaStar'sreply, and plaintiffs' surreply. ECF Nos. 155, 161, 166, 172. For the following reasons, the motion for summary judgment is granted.

II. SUMMARY OF MATERIAL UNCONTESTED FACTS

On or about June 25, 2010, Santos, along with Colón, Wilfredo O. Sandoz ("Sandoz") and Martha M. Mercado ("Mercado"), spent the day at Bahía Jobos, Guayama, Puerto Rico in a vessel that was the property of Viera and was captained and controlled by Colón. ECF Nos. 156, ¶ 3; 162, ¶ 3. None of the plaintiffs were the owner or operator of the vessel on June 25, 2010. ECF No. 162, at 6, ¶ 7. The only individuals aboard the vessel on June 25, 2010 were Santos, Colón, Sandoz, and Mercado. ECF Nos. 156, ¶ 8; 162, ¶ 8. The vessel had a Teleflex hydraulic steering system, model number HC5380, with a rod-end attachment manufactured by SeaStar in 2002 (the "Teleflex"). ECF Nos. 156, ¶ 4; 162, ¶ 4. The rod end of the Teleflex broke during the course of the voyage on June 25, 2010 and an accident occurred from which Santos sustained extensive injuries, resulting in paraplegia. ECF Nos. 156, ¶¶ 5-7; 162, ¶¶ 5-7.

The 2000 Revision M of the SeaStar / Teleflex Installation Instructions and Owner's Manual (the "Instruction Manual") was in effect at the time of manufacturing of the Teleflex. ECF Nos. 156, ¶ 13; 162, ¶ 13. The Instruction Manual contains warnings regarding corrosion of the "hydraulic hose steering," but it does not contain a specific warning regarding corrosion of the rod end of the Teleflex system or about "end of life" maintenance. ECF No. 162, ¶¶ 5-6. When Viera acquired the vessel second-hand, he did not request any maintenance log or maintenance documentation from the previous owner. ECF Nos. 156, ¶ 17; 162, ¶ 17. Viera did not read the warnings and / or stickers affixed to the Teleflex nor did he review the Instruction Manual. Id. Viera did not perform maintenance to the vessel himself or keep a maintenance log; the maintenance to the vessel was provided by third-party mechanics that Viera would retain orhire. ECF Nos. 156, ¶¶ 17-18; 156, ¶¶ 17-18. Viera has no knowledge as to what type of maintenance or services were provided to the vessel by these mechanics. Id. During the course of the seven to eight years that Viera had the vessel, none of the mechanics that provided maintenance to the vessel brought to his attention that the rod end of the Teleflex needed to be replaced. ECF Nos. 156, ¶ 19; 162, ¶ 19.

Plaintiffs confirmed on March 31, 2013 that the Teleflex had been stolen and is nowhere to be found. ECF Nos. 156, ¶ 25; 162, ¶ 25. Plaintiffs' liability expert, Farhad Booeshaghi ("Dr. Booeshaghi"), did not physically inspect the Teleflex that was installed on the vessel on June 25, 2010 for preparation of his expert report. ECF Nos. 156, ¶ 26; 162, ¶ 26. Instead, Dr. Booeshaghi physically inspected an exemplar Teleflex product for preparation of his expert report. Id. The date of manufacture of the exemplar inspected was 1998 whereas the original Teleflex was manufactured in 2002. ECF No. 156, ¶ 27; 162, ¶ 27.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

The purpose of summary judgment "is to pierce the boilerplate of the pleadings and assay the parties' proof in order to determine whether trial is actually required." Wynne v. Tufts Univ. Sch. of Med., 976 F.2d 791, 794 (1st Cir. 1992). Summary judgment is granted when the record 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 dispute is genuine if the evidence about the fact is such that a reasonable jury could resolve the point in the favor of the non-moving party. A fact is material if it has the potential of determining the outcome of the litigation.'" Farmers Ins. Exch. v. RNK, Inc., 632 F.3d 777, 782 (1st Cir. 2011) (quoting Rodríguez-Rivera v. Federico Trilla Reg'l Hosp., 532 F.3d 28, 30 (1st Cir. 2008)).

The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Once the movant presents a properly focused motion "averring 'an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case[,]' [t]he burden then shifts to the nonmovant to establish the existence of at least one fact issue which is both 'genuine' and 'material.'" Griggs-Ryan v. Smith, 904 F.2d 112, 115 (1st Cir. 1990) (quoting Garside v. Osco Drug., Inc., 895 F.2d 46, 48 (1st Cir. 1990)). For issues where the nonmoving party bears the ultimate burden of proof, that party cannot merely "rely on the absence of competent evidence, but must affirmatively point to specific facts" in the record "that demonstrate the existence of an authentic dispute." McCarthy v. Nw. Airlines, Inc., 56 F.3d 313, 315 (1st Cir. 1995). The plaintiff need not, however, "rely on uncontradicted evidence . . . . So long as the plaintiff's evidence is both cognizable and sufficiently strong to support a verdict in her favor, the factfinder must be allowed to determine which version of the facts is most compelling." Calero-Cerezo v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 355 F.3d 6, 19 (1st Cir. 2004) (emphasis in original).

In assessing a motion for summary judgment, the court "must view the entire record in the light most hospitable to the party opposing summary judgment, indulging all reasonable inferences in that party's favor." Griggs-Ryan, 904 F.2d at 115 (citations omitted). There is "no room for credibility determinations, no room for the measured weighing of conflicting evidence such as the trial process entails, [and] no room for the judge to superimpose his own ideas of probability and likelihood . . . ." Greenburg v. P. R. Mar. Shipping Auth., 835 F.2d 932, 936 (1st Cir. 1987). The court may, however, safely ignore "conclusory allegations, improbable inferences, and unsupported speculation." Medina-Muñoz v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 896 F.2d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1990) (citations omitted).

IV. ANALYSIS

A. Choice of Law

Federal maritime jurisdiction applies "in the territorial waters of Puerto Rico, which are navigable waters of the United States . . . ." Ortiz v. Zambrana, 809 F.Supp.2d 1, 6-7 (D.P.R. 2011). Indeed, "the First Circuit Court of Appeals has recognized that boating accidents are maritime torts within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the federal courts . . . ." Nieto-Vincenty v. Valledor, 22 F.Supp.3d 153, 159 (D.P.R. 2014) (citing Medina v. Pérez, 733 F.2d 170, 171 (1st Cir. 1984)); see also Acadia Ins. Co. v. McNeil, 116 F.3d 599, n.2 (1st Cir. 1997) ("Since 'pleasure boats constitute an important part of maritime commerce,' admiralty jurisdiction extends to pleasure craft." (citing Sirius Ins. Co. (UK) Ltd. v. Collins, 16 F.3d 34, 37 (2d Cir. 1994)).

Although the parties appear to agree that the underlying claim is a maritime tort that renders admiralty jurisdiction applicable in this case, there is a dispute regarding which substantive law applies. Defendant asserts that the incident that gave rise to the case at bar "falls within the scope of a maritime tort" and, therefore, federal admiralty law applies to this case. ECF No. 155, at 8. The second amended complaint avers that the court has diversity jurisdiction to hear this action, and "[i]n the alternative, this case is governed by federal maritime law . . . ." ECF No. 82, ¶ 3 (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332-33; Victory Carries, Inc. v. Law, 404 U.S. 202, 204 (1971)). In response to summary judgment plaintiffs contend that since it is their "job . . . to invoke the jurisdiction of the court," and they have invoked admiralty jurisdiction as an alternative to diversity jurisdiction in this case, Puerto Rico law controls. ECF No. 161. However, where jurisdiction is available both on diversity and maritime grounds, "[p]laintiff's choice of diversity jurisdiction rather than admiralty jurisdiction . . . does not determine thesubstantive law that governs the case." Butler v. Am. Trawler Co., 707 F. Supp. 29, 31 (D. Me.) aff'd, 887 F.2d 20 (1st Cir. 1989) (citing Austín v. Unarco Industries, Inc., 705 F.2d 1, 8 n.3 (1st Cir. 1982) cert. dismissed, 463 U.S. 1247 (1983)); see also Carey v. Bahama Cruise Lines, 864 F.2d 201 (1st Cir. 1988) ("[T]he mere fact that the plaintiff invoked diversity of citizenship jurisdiction does not preclude the application of maritime law."); Friedman v. Cunard Line Ltd., 996 F.Supp. 303 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) ("Where a tort falls within admiralty jurisdiction, the general maritime law applies, even if the plaintiff's complaint pleaded diversity of citizenship as the sole basis for subject matter...