Tillson v. Odyssey Cruises A/k/a Premier Yachts Inc
| Decision Date | 27 January 2011 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-10997-DPW |
| Parties | PAUL TILLSON, Plaintiff, v. ODYSSEY CRUISES a/k/a PREMIER YACHTS, INC., ENTERTAINMENT CRUISES, INC., JOHN DOES 1-10, ABC CORPS. 1-20, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Plaintiff Paul Tillson brought this action against several defendants, including Odyssey Cruises, a/k/a Premier Yachts, Inc. ("Premier Yachts"), 1 for injuries suffered due to the collapse ofhis chair during a cruise dinner. Tillson has moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability. Having found that genuine disputes of material fact remain to be decided by a fact finder, I will deny Tillson's motion for summary judgment.
On June 15, 2007, Tillson and his wife boarded the M/V ODYSSEY, owned and operated by Premier Yachts, at Rowes Wharf in Boston to attend a cruise dinner. Tillson sat down on a chair at his table for the first time at 7:30 p.m. During the three-hour dinner, Tillson left his table on three occasions. Upon his return to the table at 10:45 p.m., Tillson attempted to sit on the chair he had been occupying throughout the evening. At that time the chair's left rear leg "gave way or broke." As the chair was settling to the left and rear, Tillson slipped to his left, while remaining seated, and eventually landed on the floor. Before this incident, Tillson had not noticed any defect with the chair. The parties later stipulated that the chair in question had "failed due to a cracked weld on its left rear leg."
When the M/V ODYSSEY returned to Rowes Wharf at 11:00 p.m. that night, Tillson signed a Notice of Injury or Illness with the First Mate on duty. After walking off the vessel, Tillson and his wife boarded a water taxi and then walked for about a quartermile to their hotel. Tillson contends that the collapse of the chair caused him to endure back and leg pain, headaches, as well as episodic urinary incontinence.
Several individuals testified about the practice of inspection, as well as the repairs made on the chairs of the M/V ODYSSEY.
According to Captain David C. McDevitt, the crew of the M/V ODYSSEY conducted safety checks of the vessel "[a]t least once a week." In addition, Captain McDevitt and Jeffrey Taylor, the Ship's Master responsible for the maintenance of the equipment and the passengers' safety, would, as part of their regular duties, walk through the decks, allowing them to observe when a chair was bent. In addition to the crew, the restaurant staff also had the opportunity to inspect the chairs while setting up for dinner cruises. Safety inspections of the chairs were performed daily, according to Erica Gregory, a restaurant manager onboard the F/V ODYSSEY. When the crew or the restaurant staff noticed a chair with a bent leg, that chair was removed from service to be repaired by employees of Premier Yachts, generally Jeffrey Taylor.
Nevertheless, the general condition of the chairs aboard the M/V ODYSSEY was far from impeccable. According to Taylor, "mostof the chairs" had a bad lean and "some" of them had failed in the past:
Repairs on the chairs started in 2006 and continued throughout 2007, when the chairs were ultimately replaced. During that time period, approximately ten to twenty chairs would be repaired every month, according to Taylor.
When asked if he specifically recalled whether the chair causing the incident was ever repaired, Taylor replied that he did not.2 However, Brian Morrissey of Marine Safety Consultants, Inc., an investigative firm retained by Premier Yachts, stated that the chair was "an original manufactured chair, " which had not been previously repaired by Premier Yachts.
About two weeks after the incident, on July 2, 2007, Tillson called on Premier Yachts, in accordance with the relevant Terms and Conditions of the Passenger Contract, "to preserve any and all evidence in connection with this matter." Brian Morrissey informed Tillson on January 18, 2008 that the chair had been "regrettably[ ] disposed of by [Premier Yachts] during the process of transferring the vessel's chairs to" another location on or about the same date the notice of claim had been received.
Tillson filed the complaint initiating this action on June 13, 2008, alleging violations of maritime tort law (Count I), maritime negligence (Count II), common law negligence (Count III), and products liability (Count IV) against the defendants. See Note 1 supra. In his complaint, Tillson alleged federal jurisdiction based on the diversity of citizenship of theparties, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and this Court's admiralty jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1333. Tillson filed the motion for summary judgment now before me on the issue of liability following completion of discovery.
Summary judgment is appropriate "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).3
"A genuine dispute is one that could be resolved in favor of either party, and a material fact is one that has the potential of affecting the outcome of the case." Vera v. McHugh, 622 F.3d 17, 26 (1st Cir. 2010) (quoting Calero-Cerezo v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 355 F.3d 6, 19 (1st Cir. 2004)).
A district court ruling on a motion for summary judgment must view "the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party." Melendez v. Autogermana, Inc., 622 F.3d 46, 49 (1st Cir. 2010) (quoting Roman v. Potter, 604 F.3d 34, 38 (1st Cir. 2010)). Nevertheless, "the non-moving party must put forthspecific facts to support the conclusion that a triable issue subsists" in order to overcome a motion for summary judgment. Vega-Colon v. Wyeth Pharm., 625 F.3d 22, 25 (1st Cir. 2010) (quoting Martinez-Rodriguez v. Guevara, 597 F.3d 414, 419 (1st Cir. 2010)). This requires the non-moving party to "present definite, competent evidence to rebut the motion." Id. "If the nonmovant fails to make this showing, then summary judgment is appropriate." Borges ex rel. S.M.B.W. v. Serrano-Isern, 605 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2010) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986)).
As a threshold matter, the parties appear to be uncertain as to which law, either maritime or Massachusetts, governs the present dispute. It is axiomatic that "[t]he legal rights and liabilities arising from [injuries sustained aboard a ship upon navigable waters are] within the full reach of the admiralty jurisdiction and measurable by the standards of maritime law."4Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625, 628 (1959). The Admiralty Clause of the United States Constitution prohibits any attempts that would be made by the States "to modify or displace essential features of the substantive maritimelaw." Carey v. Bahama Cruise Lines, 864 F.2d 201, 207 (1st Cir. 1988) (quoting Md. Cas. Co. v. Cushing, 347 U.S. 409, 429 (1954)).
Because Tillson claims he was injured aboard a ship upon navigable waters, the present case therefore is governed by maritime law. To establish negligence under maritime law, a plaintiff must "demonstrate that there was a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, breach of that duty, injury sustained by [the] plaintiff, and a causal connection between the defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's injury." Evans v. Nantucket Cmty. Sailing, Inc., 582 F. Supp. 2d 121, 137 (D. Mass. 2008) (quoting Canal Barge Co., Inc. v. Torco Oil Co., 220 F.3d 370, 376 (5th Cir. 2000)) (alteration in original).
It is well-settled that owners or operators of cruise ships owe a duty of care to their passengers. In the context of a maritime personal injury, the Supreme Court has observed that "the owner of a ship in navigable waters owes to all who are on board for purposes not inimical to his legitimate interests the duty of exercising reasonable care under the circumstances of each case." Kermarec, 358 U.S. at 632; see also Robert Force & Martin J. Norris, The Law of Maritime Personal Injuries, § 8.2 (5th ed. 2004). "The extent to which the circumstances surrounding maritime travel are different from those encountered in dailylife and involve more danger to the passenger, will determine how high a degree of care is reasonable in each case." Monteleone v. Bahama Cruise Line, Inc., 838 F.2d 63, 65 (2d Cir. 1988) (quoting Rainey v. Paquet Cruises, Inc., 709 F.2d 169, 172 (2d Cir. 1983)). "In other words, under certain situations, reasonable care may be a very high degree of care and in another situation it may be less." Muratore v. M/S Scotia Prince, 845 F.2d 347, 353 (1st Cir. 1988).5
Because a defective chair is "a condition in no way peculiar to maritime travel, " Rainey, 709 F.2d at 172, I will measure Premier Yachts' conduct against a standard of ordinary reasonable care. See Monteleone, 838 F.2d at 65 (applying "a standard of ordinary reasonable care" where the injury was caused by a protruding screw on a cruise ship). Having identified the existence and scope of the duty owed by Premier Yachts to Tillson, I now turn to whether Premier Yachts breached this duty6and, separately whether the...
To continue reading
Request your trial