Smith v. The Pasha Group

Background

Harvey Smith, a crew member of Sunrise Operations, LLC’s vessel, the M/V Horizon Spirit, injured his back while moving crates at the direction of Captain Christopher Kluck. On March 9, 2023, a jury found that Sunrise was negligent and that its negligence contributed to Smith’s injury. The jury also found that Smith had not been ordered to perform the task, that Smith was negligent, and that Smith’s negligence contributed to his injuries. It assigned 95% of the fault to Smith and 5% to Sunrise and found total damages of $7,620,000. On March 10, 2023, the court entered judgment for Smith against Sunrise for $381,000.

Motion to Alter the Judgment

Smith moved under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to alter the judgment by setting aside the jury’s finding that he was contributorily negligent. He argued that this finding depended on the jury’s conclusion that Captain Kluck had not ordered him to perform the task. Smith relied on the rule that a seaman cannot be held contributorily negligent for carrying out an order that causes injury.

The court denied this request. It found that the record supported the jury’s finding that Kluck had made a request rather than an order. Kluck testified that he generally requested, rather than ordered, crew members to perform tasks and that Smith could have declined or done something different. An expert also testified that a superior could ask crew members to perform tasks instead of ordering them. The court explained that a seaman who carries out an ordinary task after a request may be found contributorily negligent if reasonable alternatives were available and the seaman chose an unreasonable course.

Motion for a New Trial

Smith alternatively sought a new trial under Rule 59(a). A new trial may be granted when the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence or when an erroneous evidentiary ruling substantially prejudiced a party.

First, Smith argued that his testimony that he had been ordered to perform the task was stronger than Kluck’s testimony. The court declined to reweigh the evidence. It noted that Kluck did not remember the exact words he used but testified confidently that, consistent with his usual practice, he would not have ordered Smith to perform the task. The court also considered that the jury could evaluate witness credibility from the witnesses’ manner and demeanor. It concluded that Smith had not shown that the jury made a mistake.

Second, Smith argued that the court improperly excluded a Conditional Survey Report concerning the vessel’s condition. The court found no error because Smith did not call a witness who could establish the report’s foundation or show that its photographs depicted the deck at or near the place and time of the accident. The court also ruled that Smith’s challenge to a magistrate judge’s earlier order denying permission to designate an additional expert was procedurally barred because Smith had not timely objected to that order.

Third, Smith challenged the admission of written weather reports containing data and satellite imagery indicating a lack of rain near the vessel when he was injured. The court rejected his argument that Sunrise was required to give pretrial notice of its intent to use the reports. Sunrise used the reports to address Smith’s deposition testimony that it had rained throughout the evening and his watch, which conflicted with his log entries stating that conditions were clear with good visibility. The court found that Sunrise had no reason to anticipate Smith’s trial explanation that the rain had been intermittent. It also noted that Smith had an opportunity to respond to the reports during rebuttal but did not offer additional evidence.

Disposition

The court concluded: “Smith’s motion to alter the judgment or for a new trial is hereby DENIED.” Judge Maxine M. Chesney therefore left the judgment for Smith against Sunrise in the amount of $381,000 undisturbed.