Opinion
Civil Action No. 01-3339, c/w 01-3530, Section "C" (4)
July 24, 2002
MINUTE ENTRY
Before the Court is Swan Crewboats, Inc.'s ("Swan"') Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence and Testimony of Alleged Violations of Vessel Manning Requirements/12 Hour Rule. For the reasons stated below, the motion is hereby partially GRANTED and partially DENIED.
This lawsuit arises out of allegations that Plaintiff, Ricky Paul Phipps ("Phipps"), was injured on or about January 16, 2001, aboard the vessel the MISS NATALIE when the wave action and movement of the vessel caused him to fall, hit the vessel's motor mount braces, and be thrown to the lower deck.
Phipps appears to argue that at about the time of the accident, Swan violated the "12 Hour Rule" in 46 U.S.C. § 8104 and 46 C.F.R. § 15.705, by having a crew aboard the MISS NATALIE work a shift in excess of 12 hours. This shift, Phipps apparently contends, led to the fatigue and consequent unavailability of another crew member to assist Phipps in the task he was performing or attempting to perform when injured.
Phipps argues that Swan's alleged violation of the 12 Hour Rule created a presumption of negligence on the part of the latter under the "Pennsylvania Rule." See THE PENNSYLVANIA, 86 U.S. 125, 136, 19 Wall. 125 (1873).
The Court finds the Pennsylvania Rule inapplicable here. The Court does agree with Phipps to the extent he argues that the Pennsylvania Rule is not limited solely to cases involving collisions between vessels. Yet, in the cases found by the Court in which the Pennsylvania Rule applied and in which collisions between opposing parties' vessels did not occur, the vessel(s) at issue either struck a stationery object, see Sinclair Ref Co. v. THE MORIANA DOLPHIN, 170 F. Supp. 586, 588 (S.D. N.Y. 1959), or land, see Richelieu Ontario Navigation Co. v. Boston Marine Ins. Co., 136 U.S. 408, 422-23, 10 S.Ct. 934, 937, 34 L.Ed. 398 (1890). See also Great Lakes Dredge Dock Co. v. THE SANTIAGO, 155 F.2d 148, 150 n. 7 (court erred in suggesting "that a vessel need not prove that her fault `could not have contributed to a collision between other boats, when she herself collides with neither . . .'") (quoting THE NANUET, 55 F.2d 222, 223 (2d Cir. 1932)). Extending the applicability of the Pennsylvania Rule to the instant fact scenario would appear to create a presumption of negligence upon a finding of any statutory violation involving an injury aboard a vessel in any situation at sea whatever. A century of caselaw interpreting THE PENNSYLVANIA has not so extended its impact.
Phipps points to Reyes v. Vantage S.S. Co., 609 F.2d 140 (5th Cir. 1980), as an example of the application of the Pennsylvania Rule in which the vessel at issue did not involve any kind of impact, either direct or indirect. Reyes, however, is inapposite. The case involved the presumption of negligence created by the "search and rescue doctrine," an independent foundation for creation of a presumption of negligence by the ship owner.
Accordingly, the 12-Hour Rule does not apply to create a presumption of negligence by Swan.
Notwithstanding its rejection of the application of the Pennsylvania Rule to the asserted violation of the 12-Hour Rule here, the Court also must determine whether the violation of the 12-Hour Rule asserted here is relevant. Swan has provided evidence in the form of a billing log ("log") that the only violation of the 12-Hour Rule occurred on January 14, 2001, two days prior to the alleged accident. Phipps questions the accuracy of the log, contending that the 12-Hour Rule was violated within twenty-four hours of the accident.
To the extent the one-hour violation of the 12-Hour Rule occurred prior to twenty-four hours preceding the time of the alleged accident, such a violation is de minimis as a possible factor causing the injuries alleged here and is thus irrelevant. Even assuming that one or more crew members aboard the MISS NATALIE at the time of the accident had worked 13 hours instead of 12 two days prior to the accident, the Court has faith in the ability of the human body to recover from such extra exertion over the time period in question. To the extent Phipps contends that a violation of the 12-Hour Rule occurred within twenty-four hours of the alleged accident, however, such a violation may be relevant. To be admissible, however, Phipps must first present either documentary or testimonial evidence, at least, that such a violation occurred within this twenty-four hour period and that such a violation at least partially led to the accident in question.