Summary Judgment on the Rate of Maintenance Denied When Evidence Submitted by Parties is Conflicting

Summary Judgment on the Rate of Maintenance Denied When Evidence Submitted by Parties is Conflicting

By: Amanda Huff

Edited by: Molly MacKenzie

Barnes v. Sea Haw. Rafting, LLC, No. 13-00002 ACK-RLP, 2014 WL 1464834, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51824 (D. Haw. April 15, 2014).

The plaintiff Chad Berry Barnes, crewmember of the vessel M/V TEHANI, suffered injuries when an explosion occurred under the deck of the ship as he started its engine. He sued for maintenance and cure, for negligence under the Jones Act, and for breach of the warranty of seaworthiness. Barnes filed a Motion for Summary Judgment solely on the issue of the amount of maintenance owed per diem. Having previously found that Barnes was due maintenance from the date of injury until maximum cure was reached, the court then addressed the rate of maintenance, despite the employer maintaining that Barnes incurred no living expenses. The court explained that while typically the seaman must actually incur the expense before he is entitled to reimbursement, “when the seaman has made an ‘expressed intention’ to pay for lodging and food . . . the seaman may recover maintenance.” Hall v. Noble Drilling, Inc., 242 F.3d 582, 587-88 (5th Cir. 2001). Because Barnes expressed an intention to repay his family members and friends for allowing him to recover in their homes, he was fully entitled to a proper rate of maintenance and cure, retroactive to the date of his injuries.In addressing the fundamental issue of the amount of maintenance and cure, the court employed the three-part test that the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals outlined in Hall v. Noble Drilling.First, a court must estimate actual costs of food and lodging incurred by the seaman, as well as reasonable costs of food and lodging for a seaman in the same locality. Second, the court compares these amounts. If actual expenses surpass what the court has estimated as reasonable, the seaman is awarded the reasonable expenses. Finally, the court considers whether the seaman’s actual expenses were “inadequate to provide him with reasonable food and lodging.” If his actual costs were inadequate, the court is to award him the amount determined to be reasonable for a seaman in his locality.In this case, however, the parties submitted conflicting evidence, so summary judgment was denied.