Rose v. Chaplin Marine Transport, Inc.
Decision Date | 26 July 1995 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 2:93-0444. |
Citation | 895 F. Supp. 856 |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia |
Parties | John Michael ROSE, Plaintiff, v. CHAPLIN MARINE TRANSPORT, INC. and Mon River Towing, Inc., Defendants. |
Carl E. Hostler, Hostler Law Offices, Charleston, WV, James J. Bedortha, Joel I. Persky and Joseph J. Cirilano, Goldberg, Persky, Jennings & White, P.C., Pittsburgh, PA, for plaintiff.
Mark D. Shepard, George H. Crompton and Paul D. Kruper, Buchanon Ingersoll, Pittsburgh, PA, for defendants.
Pending is the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants Chaplin Marine Transport, Inc. ("Chaplin") and Mon River Towing, Inc. ("Mon River"). Plaintiff has responded and Defendants have replied. This issue is ripe for adjudication.
Plaintiff initiated this action on May 28, 1993. He filed an amended complaint on December 7, 1994. Plaintiff contends he was injured while working on the M/V Lillian G, a tow boat, on November 25, 1992. The Lillian G is owned by Mon River, but was being operated pursuant to a bareboat, or demise charter by Chaplin. In turn, Chaplin was operating the boat pursuant to a purported time charter between it and Mon River. Plaintiff contends he was following the common practice of his employer, Chaplin, when he was seriously burned as he attempted to incinerate garbage in a barrel located on the deck of the vessel. He asserts Mon River was aware of the presence and use of the barrel to burn garbage at the time of the incident. Plaintiff asserts causes of action based upon this Court's admiralty jurisdiction and the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.App. § 688.1
Defendants contend they are entitled to summary judgment. The standard used to determine whether a motion for summary judgment should be granted or denied is stated by our Court of Appeals as follows:
Accord, McCoy v. United Postal Service, 890 F.Supp. 529, 531 n. 3 (S.D.W.Va.1995) (Haden, C.J.); Browning v. Snead, 886 F.Supp. 547, 549-50 (S.D.W.Va.1995) (Haden, C.J.).
Mon River asserts it is not liable for any negligence occurring on or unseaworthiness of the Lillian G. It relies on the bareboat charter agreement between it and Chaplin. It claims the bareboat charter turns exclusive control, operation and navigation of the vessel over to Chaplin, thus relieving it of responsibility for Plaintiff's injuries. For the reasons that follow the Court agrees.
The owner of a vessel is normally liable for injuries caused by the vessel's unseaworthiness. McAleer v. Smith, 57 F.3d 109, 111-12 (1st Cir.1995), citing, Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U.S. 85, 90, 66 S.Ct. 872, 875, 90 L.Ed. 1099 (1946) (citing, The Osceola, 189 U.S. 158, 23 S.Ct. 483, 47 L.Ed. 760 (1903)); Moore v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 912 F.2d 789, 792 (5th Cir.1990) ().
See Wheatley v. Gladden, 660 F.2d 1024, 1026 (4th Cir.1981) () ; Carolina Seafoods, Inc. v. United States, 581 F.2d 1098, 1100 (4th Cir.1978). The charterer under a bareboat or demise charter thus stands in the shoes of the owner and becomes the owner pro hac vice. Because the bareboat charterer stands in the shoes of the owner, the bareboat charterer assumes the duties and responsibilities appurtenant to ownership, and the owner is relieved of the same. As stated recently in Dow Chemical Co. v. Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc., 887 F.Supp. 853, 863, (E.D.Va.1995):
See Forrester v. Ocean Marine Indem. Co., 11 F.3d 1213, 1215 (5th Cir.1993) (). And as stated in Wolsiffer v. Atlantis Submarines, Inc., 848 F.Supp. 1489, 1494 (D.Haw.1994):
The owner of a vessel impliedly warrants its seaworthiness2 to the point of delivery to the bareboat charterer.3 Kerr-McGee Corp. v. Law, 479 F.2d 61 (4th Cir. 1973); Dow Chemical Co. v. Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc., 887 F.Supp. at 864, citing, Dempsey v. Downing, 11 F.2d 15, 17 (4th Cir.1926); In the Matter of D & H Corp., 1994 WL 574143, *1 (E.D.Va.1993); Cos v. French-Polish Shipping Co., 1986 WL 13361, *1 (D.Md.1986); Interocean Shipping Co. v. M/V Lygaria, 512 F.Supp. 960 (D.Md. 1981). If the vessel was unseaworthy when delivered, the owner is liable for injuries caused by such unseaworthiness notwithstanding the existence of the bareboat charter. If the vessel is seaworthy upon delivery, the bareboat charterer then assumes the responsibilities of the owner for liability for injuries thereafter caused by the unseaworthiness of the vessel. McAleer v. Smith, supra, 57 F.3d at 112 (); Forrester v. Ocean Marine Indem. Co., 11 F.3d at 1215 (); Wolsiffer v. Atlantis Submarines, Inc., 848 F.Supp. at 1494 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
JJ Water Works, Inc. v. San Juan Towing & Marine Servs., Inc.
...“except for defective conditions that existed before the owner pro hac vice took control of the vessel”); Rose v. Chaplin Marine Transp., Inc., 895 F.Supp. 856, 860 (S.D.W.Va.1995) (“If the vessel was unseaworthy when delivered, the owner is liable for injuries caused by such unseaworthines......
-
Kelly v. Hoegh Autoliners Shipping PTE, LTD.
...at 167, 101 S.Ct., at 1622). 24. Jones v. Sanko S.S. Co., Ltd, 148 F.Supp.3d 374, 388 (D.N.J. 2015). 25. Rose v. Chaplin Marine Transp., Inc., 895 F. Supp. 856, 859 (S.D.W. Va. 1995). 26. Reed v. S. S. Yaka, 373 U.S. 410, 412-13, 83 S. Ct. 1349, 1351-52, 10 L. Ed. 2d 448 (1963); Jones v. Sa......
-
Bareboat Charters: Can a Shipowner Limit Liability to Third Parties? Answers for Owners Attempting to Navigate the Unsettled Waters in the Eleventh Circuit
...a demise (or bareboat) charter is liable only for unseaworthiness that pre-existed the charter"); Rose v. Chaplin Marine Transp. Inc., 895 F. Supp. 856, 860 (S.D. W. Va. 1995); Matute v. Lloyd Berm. Lines, Ltd., 931 F.2d 231,235 (3d Cir. 1991); Aird v. Weyerhaeuser S.S. Co., 169 F.2d 606,60......