Opinion
Civil Action 00-2899, Section "T"(4)
November 29, 2001
Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment filed on behalf of the Defendants, Candy Fleet Corporation. CNG Producing, Inc. and Underwriters Insurance Company. The parties waived oral argument and the matter was taken under submission on November 4, 2001. The Court having considered the arguments of the parties, the Court record, the law and applicable jurisprudence, is fully advised in the premises and ready to rule.
ORDER AND REASONS
I. BACKGROUND:
On May 4, 1999, the Plaintiffs, James Summerville and Phillip Douglas, boarded the M/V CANDY COTTON and were being transported to the Pride 1003 platform in Main Pass 281 in the Gulf of Mexico. The trip to the platform was estimated at three hours.
Some 2 to 2 and 1/2 hours into the boat ride, the MN CANDY COTTON encountered a series of 6-8 foot waves. The MN CANDY COTTON was around 7 miles from her destination platform when she encountered these waves. The Plaintiffs allege that they were tossed about in their seats while on the vessel due to the excessive speed of the vessel when she encountered the 6-8 foot waves. Plaintiffs argue that the jostling about caused them various injuries. The Plaintiffs contend that their injuries are due to the boat captain's negligence in traveling at an excessive speed through high seas.
II. LEGAL ANALYSIS:
A. Law on Summary Judgment
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that summary judgment should be granted only "if the pleadings. depositions. answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the record which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Stults v. Conoco, Inc., 76 F.3d 651, 655-56 (5th Cir. 1996) (citing Skotak v. Ienneco Resins, Inc., 953 F.2d 909, 912-13 (5th Cir.) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 832 (1992)). When the moving party has carried its burden under Rule 56(c), its opponent must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts. The nonmoving party must come forward with "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (emphasis supplied); Tubacex. Inc. v. M/V RISAN, 45 F.3d 951, 954 (5th Cir. 1995).
Thus, where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no "genuine issue for trial." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 475 U.S. at 588. Finally, the Court notes that substantive law determines the materiality of facts and only "facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
B. Contested Issue of Material Fact Exists
In their Memorandum in Support of the Motion for Summary Judgment, the Defendants describe three accounts of the boat ride in question; the account according to the captain of the MN CANDY COTTON, Captain Weiss, the account according to the Plaintiff, Phillip Douglas, and the account according to the Plaintiff, James Summerville. These three parties, as evidenced by their depositions, agree that there was a sudden increase in the height of the waves. The Defendants argue that because the larger waves came upon the vessel without warning, then the defendants are not liable for any damages that may have been caused. The Defendants cite numerous cases in support of their argument.
The deposition testimony of Captain Weiss, Mr. Douglas, and Mr. Summerville were included as exhibits to the Motion for Summary Judgment.
In their Opposition Memorandum, the Plaintiffs note that the cases cited by the Defendants in their motion are factually distinguishable from the case at bar. In addition, the Plaintiffs summarize the deposition testimony of Captain Timothy Torrence, an expert in the field of vessel operations. In his deposition, Captain Torrence opines that Captain Weiss was negligent when he did not slow down before encountering the larger waves.
The deposition testimony of Captain Torrence was included as an exhibit to the Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment.
Although the Defendants argue that there is no genuine issue of material fact in regards to their negligence, the deposition testimony of an expert in the field of vessel operations whose opinion is opposite to that of the Defendants clearly establishes a genuine issue of material fact. In addition. the cases cited, all of which are inapplicable to the case at bar, do not lead the Court to believe that Summary Judgment is proper. Therefore, the Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment filed on behalf of Defendants, Candy Fleet Corporation, CNG Producing, Inc. and Underwriters Insurance Company, be and the same is hereby DENIED.