Wynn v. Harley Marine Services Inc.

Background

Bryan Wynn sued Harley Marine Services, Inc., and Starlight Marine Services, Inc., under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30104. He alleged that he was injured while working as chief engineer on the tugboat M/V Ahbra Franco. His claims were for negligence and unseaworthiness, and he sought compensatory and punitive damages. The defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims and on the availability of punitive damages.

The opinion notes that the defendants had recently changed their name to Centerline Logistics Corporation.

Jones Act negligence claim

The court denied summary judgment on the negligence claim because the record contained genuine disputes of material fact requiring a trial. The defendants said the tugboat was safely operated and seaworthy; Wynn offered conflicting evidence.

The court explained that a Jones Act negligence claim requires duty, breach, notice, and causation. The defendants did not dispute that they owed Wynn a duty to provide a reasonably safe place to work, but they mainly argued that they had not breached that duty. The evidence conflicted about whether an experienced captain or an inexperienced trainee was operating the tugboat, whether Wynn had been told that a trainee would be at the helm, whether he had been warned about the risk of a significant collision, and whether the tugboat was traveling too fast when it contacted another vessel.

The defendants did not argue that they lacked notice of safety risks. They suggested that Wynn’s injuries resulted from his failure to brace himself while putting on his pants, but the court treated causation and allocation of fault as factual questions. Viewing the evidence in Wynn’s favor, the court concluded that a reasonable jury could find that the defendants breached their duty and that their negligence played a part in Wynn’s injuries.

Unseaworthiness claim

The court also denied summary judgment on the unseaworthiness claim. In maritime law, unseaworthiness requires proof that a physical or other defect caused the injury and made the vessel not reasonably fit for its intended use, even temporarily.

It was undisputed that the tugboat used Shibata fenders rather than tire fenders. Wynn presented expert testimony from Captain Reginald McKamie that tire fenders would have reduced impacts with other vessels more effectively, particularly when the tugboat was operated by someone relatively inexperienced. The court found that this evidence could allow a reasonable jury to conclude that the tugboat was not well suited to safely perform its intended task of pushing other boats during the relevant period.

The defendants also challenged Captain McKamie’s opinions under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which governs expert testimony. The court rejected that challenge at this stage. It noted that McKamie had 49 years of maritime experience, including service on merchant and Navy vessels and work as an adviser to the United States Coast Guard on maritime-safety issues. The court found that he was familiar with the case record and general maritime-safety standards, making his opinions suitable for consideration.

Punitive damages and disposition

The court granted summary judgment for the defendants on punitive damages. It explained that punitive damages are unavailable for negligence claims under the Jones Act and that the Supreme Court had held the same for unseaworthiness claims. Wynn conceded that he could not recover punitive damages.

Judge James Donato concluded: “Summary judgment is granted for defendants on the issue of punitive damages. It is denied in all other respects.” Thus, the negligence and unseaworthiness claims were not resolved on summary judgment and remained for further proceedings.