Mezzina v. Port Imperial Ferry Corp.

Background

Cosmo Mezzina sued Port Imperial Ferry Corp. d/b/a New York Waterway for injuries he sustained while employed as a deckhand. He asserted negligence under the Jones Act and unseaworthiness under general maritime law, seeking damages and separately seeking maintenance, cure, and medical expenses. The court noted that neither party moved on the maintenance-and-cure claim.

On October 1, 2021, Mezzina was working aboard the Garden State after it was pushed back into a dock by current and waves. The captain and Mezzina removed a hatch cover so the captain could inspect the lower part of the vessel. The open hatch was approximately 39 inches long by 32 inches wide. At the captain’s direction, Mezzina retrieved and set up bright yellow barricades around at least two sides of the hatch, including the side from which he later approached it.

Mezzina then moved around the vessel and could see the barricades. After the captain exited the lower area, he instructed Mezzina to retrieve another line. Mezzina ran toward the stern while the vessel was rocking and fell into the open hatch. The court found that the fall occurred less than six minutes after Mezzina and the captain had removed the hatch cover. Mezzina testified that he did not see anyone move the barricades and did not check whether they remained in place immediately before running toward the hatch.

The parties’ motions

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on liability. Summary judgment is available when the evidence shows that there is no genuine dispute about a fact that matters to the case and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

Mezzina argued that a Coast Guard “Protection of the Crew” regulation required the defendant to protect the open hatch in a satisfactory manner. He argued that violating that regulation established negligence and unseaworthiness as a matter of law and shifted the burden of disproving causation under the Pennsylvania Rule. He also sought to prevent the defendant from contesting liability as a sanction for alleged discovery failures involving an accident report, photographs, and video.

The defendant sought summary judgment on Mezzina’s Jones Act negligence and unseaworthiness claims. It argued that the open hatch was an obvious danger of which Mezzina was aware, that barricades had been installed, and that Mezzina had not shown that the defendant’s conduct caused his injury or that the vessel was unseaworthy.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the Protection of the Crew regulation did not apply to the Garden State. The vessel’s inspection certificate described its authorized routes as being within lakes, bays, and sounds, and the court concluded that the vessel fell within the regulation’s geographic exception. The court also concluded that the vessel was excluded because its applicable regulatory tonnage was less than 150 gross tons. Because the regulation did not apply, the court did not need to decide whether the defendant violated it. The court therefore denied Mezzina’s motion based on negligence per se, unseaworthiness as a matter of law, and the Pennsylvania Rule.

The court also denied Mezzina’s request for a case-dispositive discovery sanction. It found that the delayed production of the reverse side of an accident report concerned an undisputed fact and was not shown to warrant the requested sanction. The record indicated that the photographs Mezzina sought either did not exist or were taken before the hatch cover was removed, and the defendant submitted a declaration stating that responsive video did not exist because the relevant camera was inoperable. The court concluded that Mezzina had not established the severe discovery violation necessary to bar the defendant from contesting liability.

On the Jones Act claim, the court explained that a plaintiff must show a dangerous condition, notice to the shipowner, and negligence that played a part in causing the injury. The defendant did not dispute that the open hatch was dangerous or that it had notice of the condition. But the court found that Mezzina lacked evidence that the defendant or the captain acted negligently. The court emphasized that Mezzina had helped open the hatch, had seen the barricades, had not seen anyone move them, and had chosen to run toward the hatch despite a safe alternate route. It concluded that no reasonable jury could find for Mezzina on the Jones Act claim.

On unseaworthiness, the court explained that a vessel must be reasonably fit for its intended service, but the standard does not require perfection. The plaintiff must show both an insufficient or defective vessel condition and a connection between that condition and the injury. The court found that the temporarily open hatch was guarded by barricades adequate to provide a warning, that Mezzina knew about the hatch, and that he had an alternate route. Mezzina did not identify facts, practices, or legal authority showing that the vessel had to have a permanent physical barrier or that the hatch had to be covered in these circumstances. The court therefore granted summary judgment to the defendant on the unseaworthiness claim.

Disposition

Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald granted Port Imperial Ferry Corp.’s partial motion for summary judgment as to Mezzina’s Jones Act and general maritime-law claims. She denied Mezzina’s partial motion for summary judgment and denied his motion to preclude the defendant from contesting liability based on alleged discovery disputes. The ruling did not decide the maintenance-and-cure claim.