Jones Act Case Study: Randy Klump v Oglebay Norton Marine Services Co., LLC

Case Name: Randy Klump v Oglebay Norton Marine Services Co., LLC
Date of Judgment: 22^nd May 2009
Court: U.S.D.C. – E.D. Michigan – Northern Division
Judge: District Judge Ludington
Citation: 2009 WL 1456306 (E.D.Mich.)

Background: Plaintiff Randy Klump filed a complaint against defendant Oglebay Norton Marine Service Company (“ONMS”). Klump alleged that ONMS’s negligence and the unseaworthiness of their vessel caused his injuries.

Klump worked as a crewmember on the M/V David Z. Norton. On June 9, 2006, Klump was returning from shore leave and reporting back to ONMS’s vessel at Calcite Harbor. While riding a bicycle on the dock, Klump slipped on loose gravel and injured his clavicle. He was deemed unfit to work for over a year, and received maintenance and cure.

The parties agreed that Klump sustained his injury on a third-party owned dock where the ship was moored.

ONMS moved for summary judgment, contending it should be granted because: (1) a claim for unseaworthiness only applied to a vessel and its appurtenances, not a dock; and (2) ONMS did not owe Klump a legal duty to maintain the dock to support a negligence cause of action.

On April 1, 2009, Magistrate Judge Binder issued a recommendation that the Court grant ONMS’s motions for summary judgment.

Issue: Whether the Court will follow the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation and grant ONMS’s motion for summary judgment for (1) unseaworthiness and (2) negligence.

Held:
First, Klump did not dispute the magistrate judge’s recommendation to grant summary judgment in favor of ONMS with respect to the unseaworthiness claim. Thus, this Court agreed with the magistrate judge, and granted summary judgment in ONMS’s favor.

Regarding the negligence claim, the Court looked at whether Klump established that he was a seaman, acting in the course of his employment when the injury occurred, and that ONMS had a part in causing the injury.

The record showed that ONMS and O-N Mineral (the third-party dock owner) had a contractual relationship. In addition, the same company that owned ONMS also owned O-N Minerals. Thus, the common control of enterprises by a single entity supported the conclusion that ONMS’s employees could use O-N Mineral’s property for access to the vessel.  The Court concluded that there was a connection to ONMS and Klump’s injury. Therefore, ONMS’s motion for summary judgment for the negligence claim was denied.

Comments:

A motion for summary judgment indicates that there are no issues of material fact to be resolved. Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56(c), a court must review pleadings, depositions, interrogatories, admissions and all other documents. If there is any indication there are genuine issues of material fact to be resolved, summary judgment will be denied.

A fact is “material” if its resolution would affect the outcome of the lawsuit.

The party who brings the summary judgment motion has the initial burden of informing the district court of the basis for its motion.  The party opposing the motion must make an affirmative showing with evidence to defeat the motion. However, the Court will view the evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party.

Steve Gordon
http://www.offshoreinjuries.com

This blog is sponsored by:

Enjoy this story? Subscribe to or feed OR Send to friend