Ali v. Pasha Hawaii Holdings, LLC
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:20-cv-08122
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 21
In Ali v. Pasha Hawaii, Judge Gilliam found no liability after a bench trial and entered judgment for Pasha.
Abdulataef Ali did not obtain liability findings against Pasha Hawaii Holdings, LLC. Pasha was not held liable for negligence or unseaworthiness, and it was not required to pay additional maintenance and cure after January 17, 2022. The court entered judgment for Pasha and closed the case.
What happened
In Ali v. Pasha Hawaii Holdings, LLC, Abdulataef Ali sued his employer after he fell while maintaining a pilot-ladder system aboard the M/V MARJORIE C. He brought claims for negligence under the Jones Act, an unsafe-vessel claim under maritime law, and maintenance and cure benefits.
After a trial without a jury, the court found that Pasha was not negligent and that the vessel was not unseaworthy. The court also found that Ali reached maximum medical recovery by January 17, 2022, so he was not entitled to additional maintenance and cure after that date.
Judge Haywood Gilliam entered judgment for Pasha and closed the case. He denied Ali’s motion for a directed verdict, denied as moot Pasha’s request for judicial notice and Ali’s motion to strike, and denied Ali’s request for sanctions.
The detailed version
- Ali v. Pasha Hawaii Holdings, LLC · No. 4:20-cv-08122
- Haywood Gilliam
- Jan. 18, 2024
Background
Abdulataef Ali, a Jones Act seaman and able-bodied seaman, worked for Pasha Hawaii Holdings, LLC aboard the M/V MARJORIE C. On December 8, 2019, Ali and another able-bodied seaman were assigned to inspect and maintain the vessel’s port and starboard pilot ladders. While on a step ladder at the starboard pilot station, Ali tried to pull a stiff hose from an air motor. He lost his balance and fell to the deck, injuring his right knee.
Ali sued Pasha under the Jones Act for negligence and under general maritime law for unseaworthiness and maintenance and cure. The case was tried to the court without a jury on several dates in December 2022 and January 2023. The court considered the trial evidence, exhibits, proposed findings, and the parties’ arguments.
Findings about the accident and equipment
The court found that the ladder did not break, collapse, or fall over, and that the air motor, hoses, screwdriver, and hose clamps did not break or fail. Ali had performed the maintenance task more than ten times before the accident and knew that he could stop work or ask for help if he believed a job was unsafe. The court credited defense expert Eric Deyerl’s opinion that the task was not unsafe and found the contrary opinions of Ali’s expert, Dr. Steve Wiker, unpersuasive.
The court also found that the air-motor lubricator had been installed below the air motor, contrary to the manual’s instruction to install it level with or above the motor, but concluded that this configuration was not negligent. The court found no negligence in Pasha’s use of barbed fittings instead of quick-connect fittings, its failure to replace the stiff hoses, or its failure to conduct a job-safety analysis, job-hazard analysis, or risk assessment. The court found that the vessel’s equipment was reasonably fit for its intended purpose and that Pasha adequately and competently maintained the compressed-air system.
Conclusions of law
Jones Act negligence. The court held that Ali proved he was a seaman and that Pasha owed him a duty to provide a safe workplace. But the court concluded that Ali did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Pasha breached that duty. The court therefore found Pasha not negligent in assigning the maintenance task, installing or maintaining the air-motor system, using barbed fittings, failing to replace the hoses, or failing to conduct a safety analysis or risk assessment.
Unseaworthiness. The court held that Ali did not prove that the M/V MARJORIE C was unseaworthy. The court found that the equipment, hoses, and hose clamps were reasonably proper and suitable for their intended uses, and that the assistance provided by the other seaman was adequate and competent. Because Ali did not prove unseaworthiness, the court did not reach causation for that claim.
Maintenance and cure. Maintenance and cure are benefits covering a seaman’s living expenses and medical treatment while injured or ill in the service of a vessel. The parties stipulated to payments that included $17,792 in maintenance benefits, $22,606.98 in cure, $290.68 in mileage, and an additional $20,000 in payments. The court found that Ali reached maximum cure—meaning the point beyond which medical treatment was not reasonably expected to improve his condition—no later than January 17, 2022. The court concluded that Ali was not entitled to recover maintenance and cure after that date and that Pasha was not required to make additional payments.
Other rulings and disposition
The court overruled Pasha’s objections to the deposition testimony of Mats Holmquist, Anthony Sabatini, Captain Jamie Beadnell, Bernardino Eda, Ramsey Hammoud, and Jeffrey Waldrop. It terminated as moot Pasha’s objections to the deposition designations of Dr. Phillip Allman and Maria Brady because that testimony concerned damages, which the court did not reach after finding no liability.
The court denied as moot Pasha’s request for judicial notice of, or alternatively to admit, Exhibits 368 and 369. It denied as moot Ali’s motion to strike the declaration supporting that request and denied Ali’s request for sanctions. The court denied Ali’s oral motion for a directed verdict. It also denied Pasha’s request that Ali reimburse Pasha for the additional $20,000 in payments.
The court directed the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of Pasha and close the file.
Read the full 21-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.