Justia Admiralty & Maritime Law Opinion Summaries

A hotel guest, who was staying at a lodge as part of a cruise package, fell in his bathroom after tripping over a raised shower ledge situated close to the toilet. He alleged that the bathroom’s configuration was unreasonably dangerous, and that the cruise line and hotel operator were negligent in constructing or maintaining that configuration. The guest asserted both a traditional maritime negligence claim and an alternative theory of negligence per se, arguing that the bathroom violated applicable plumbing codes.The United States District Court for the Central District of California granted summary judgment for the defendants on both theories. Regarding the negligence claim, the district court ruled that the plaintiff had not provided evidence that the defendants had actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition. On the negligence per se theory, the district court found that there was insufficient evidence that a plumbing code violation caused the plaintiff’s injury.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The appellate court held that, because the defendants owned and constructed the lodge’s bathroom, there was no dispute that they knew or should have known the configuration existed. It found that the plaintiff’s expert evidence created a genuine dispute about whether the defendants knew or should have known that the configuration was unreasonably dangerous. Therefore, the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s summary judgment on the maritime negligence claim. However, the appellate court agreed with the district court that the defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the negligence per se theory, concluding that a movable shower curtain did not violate the cited plumbing code. The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the defendants on negligence per se and remanded the general negligence claim for further proceedings. View "PETREY V. PRINCESS CRUISE LINES, LTD." on Justia Law

The case concerns an incident that occurred at Lake Mead, where Bryce Tyrone Verhonich operated a jet ski with a passenger, Lily Hatcher, in the early morning hours. After taking a detour to view the sunrise, both Verhonich and Hatcher fell into the water under rough conditions. Verhonich, who was not wearing a life jacket or engine cut-off lanyard, was rescued, but Hatcher drowned. Subsequent investigation revealed that neither individual was wearing a personal flotation device and the engine cut-off switch lanyard was not attached to Verhonich. Surveillance and body camera footage confirmed these facts. Hatcher’s body was later recovered, and an autopsy found drowning as the cause of death, with drugs as contributing factors.The case was first tried before a United States magistrate judge, who found Verhonich guilty of negligent operation of a vessel, failure to wear a personal flotation device, and failure to attach the engine cut-off switch lanyard—all in violation of National Park Service regulations. The magistrate judge sentenced him to six months in custody and two years of probation. Verhonich appealed to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, arguing improper admission of evidence, insufficient evidence for conviction on negligent operation, and sentencing error. The district court affirmed the convictions and sentence.On further appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that failure to wear a life jacket and failure to attach a safety lanyard may both be considered in determining negligent operation under 36 C.F.R. § 3.8(b)(8). The court found sufficient evidence to support Verhonich’s conviction, determined that evidentiary objections did not survive plain error review, and upheld the sentence as reasonable. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "USA V. VERHONICH" on Justia Law

A former ship captain was prosecuted after a fire broke out on his vessel, resulting in the deaths of thirty-four passengers and crew members. The ship, used for recreational diving, had multiple fire safety features and regulatory requirements, including the need for a roving night patrol and crew training in fire response. The captain had extensive maritime experience, but his crew was relatively inexperienced and had not been adequately trained in emergency procedures. On the night of the incident, no one was assigned to patrol for fires, and when the fire was discovered, the crew was unprepared to respond effectively. The captain contacted the Coast Guard but did not use the ship’s public address system to warn those below deck or attempt a rescue, ultimately abandoning ship along with other crew members. All individuals below deck died from smoke inhalation and asphyxiation.The United States District Court for the Central District of California presided over the initial criminal case. The first indictment tracked the language of the seaman’s manslaughter statute but was dismissed by the district court for not alleging gross negligence, which the court believed was required based on prior interpretations of a different manslaughter statute. The government reindicted, alleging gross negligence, and the case proceeded to trial. The jury was instructed that conviction could follow if the captain engaged in “misconduct and/or acted with gross negligence.” The jury found the captain guilty.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the seaman’s manslaughter statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1115, requires only ordinary negligence, not gross negligence. The court further concluded that, even if the jury instruction’s use of “misconduct” was erroneous, any such error was harmless because the instructions repeatedly referenced the higher gross negligence standard, the prosecution did not argue for a lower standard, and overwhelming evidence supported the conviction. The judgment was affirmed. View "USA V. BOYLAN" on Justia Law

A fire broke out on the passenger dive boat M.V. Conception during a scuba diving excursion in September 2019, resulting in the deaths of thirty-four people who were trapped below deck. The Coast Guard had inspected the vessel multiple times before the incident and had found it fit for service, not identifying any safety hazards related to electrical wiring, plastic trash cans, or plastic chairs. Personal representatives of the deceased and one injured survivor filed suit against the United States, alleging that the Coast Guard’s negligent inspection and failure to identify these hazards caused the tragedy.The United States District Court for the Central District of California was the first to review the case. The government moved to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the discretionary function exception to the Suits in Admiralty Act (SIAA) applied. The district court agreed, finding that the relevant statutes and regulations gave Coast Guard inspectors discretion in how to conduct vessel inspections and in determining what constituted hazardous conditions. As a result, plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the discretionary function exception, and the suit was dismissed.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that its prior precedent, Earles v. United States, which applies the discretionary function exception from the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) to the SIAA, remained binding and had not been overruled by the Supreme Court’s decision in Thacker v. Tennessee Valley Authority. The court further found that no specific statute, regulation, or policy required the Coast Guard to identify the hazards alleged by plaintiffs, and that the inspection process involved discretionary, policy-based decisions. Accordingly, the discretionary function exception barred the suit, and dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was proper. View "Fiedler v. United States" on Justia Law

A jurisdictional dispute arose between the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) over maintenance work at SSA Terminals in the Port of Seattle. Both unions claimed the right to perform the work under their respective collective bargaining agreements. SSA initially assigned the work to ILWU, but IAM threatened economic action, prompting SSA to seek a resolution from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB assigned the work to IAM, leading ILWU to pursue a grievance against SSA, which an arbitrator upheld.SSA then filed an unfair labor practice charge against ILWU, alleging that ILWU's pursuit of the grievance violated section 8(b)(4)(D) of the National Labor Relations Act. ILWU defended itself by invoking the work-preservation defense, which protects primary union activity. The NLRB rejected this defense, stating it was not applicable in pure jurisdictional disputes where multiple unions have valid contractual claims. The NLRB ordered ILWU to cease and desist from pursuing the maintenance work at Terminal 5.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the NLRB's position was foreclosed by its previous decision in International Longshore and Warehouse Union v. NLRB (Kinder Morgan), which established that a valid work-preservation objective provides a complete defense against alleged violations of section 8(b)(4)(D). The court vacated the NLRB's order and remanded the case for the NLRB to evaluate the merits of ILWU's work-preservation defense. The court also denied the petitions for review by IAM and the NLRB's cross-petition for enforcement. View "International Longshore and Warehouse Union v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law

After James McIndoe died from complications related to mesothelioma, McIndoe's legal heirs filed suit against defendants, arguing that McIndoe’s exposure to asbestos-containing materials aboard their ships contributed to his death. The district court granted defendants' motions for summary judgment. The court agreed with the district court that McIndoe’s heirs cannot sustain an action for strict products liability premised upon the notion that the warships in question are themselves “products” under maritime law. The court also concluded that, although plaintiffs have established that there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether McIndoe was exposed to asbestos-containing materials originally installed upon such ships, plaintiffs have established no genuine issue of fact regarding whether any such exposure was a substantial factor in McIndoe’s injuries. Therefore, plaintiffs cannot prevail on their general negligence claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "McIndoe v. Huntington Ingalls Inc." on Justia Law