Judge or Jury?
Judge or Jury?
By: Sara Ashton LaRosa
Edited by: Brooke E. Michiels
In re Bridge Constr. Servs. Of Fla., 39 F. Supp. 3d 373 (S.D.N.Y. 2014), 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 146080.
Jose Ayala fell off of a barge named the “HUGHES 660” and into the Hudson River while repairing the Tappan Zee Bridge. Ayala was injured by the fall, which he claims happened when the barge collided with a tugboat named the “Bruce Russell.” Ayala filed suit in New York state court against several defendants under different theories. All of the defendants filed separate limitation of liability and exoneration proceedings in federal court. After an out of court settlement Ayala still had claims against Bridge Construction Services of Florida, Inc. (“Bridge” herein), the owner of the tugboat. Also, Tutor Perini Corporation (“Tutor Perini” herein), Ayala’s employer and the general contractor for the bridge repair project, which had cross-claims with Bridge, was still party to the suit.Ayala brought claims of direct negligence and vicarious liability for hiring the pilot of the tugboat who Ayala argued did not have the proper license to pilot the tugboat. Indemnity claims were also brought against Bridge by Tutor Perini, Hughes Brother (the owner of the barge), and Tri-State Electric Contracting Inc. (a contractor working on the bridge). Bridge filed a cross-claim of indemnification against Tutor Perini.All three parties filed summary judgement motions and the court subsequently denied Bridge’s and Ayala’s motions, and denied in part and granted in part Tutor Perini’s motion for summary judgement.The main issue in the case was “what issues, if any, should be tried before a jury.” Both parties agreed that issues of limitation of liability and exoneration, filed by Bridge, would be decided by the court. A limitation proceeding is conducted in a federal district court “sitting in admiralty without a jury in a concursus.” Because there is no jury for actions instituted in admiralty, once a limitation proceeding is filed, claimants are barred from pursuing common law claims before a jury in any other forum. However, the saving to suitors’ clause provides claimants the right to a jury trial despite the exercise of admiralty jurisdiction. This is the precise conflict the court is faced with in this case.The court held that a conursus is necessary in the case; the question is whether “there is a way to preserve a claimant’s right to its common law remedies within the concursus.” The court cited precedent from the court to hold that “the most reasonable and efficient process will be to empanel a jury at the outset of the trial and allow the trial to proceed on issues pertaining both to limitation and common law claims.” In re Complaint of Poling Transp. Corp., 776 F. Supp. 779 (S.D.N.Y. 1991). The court reasoned that the issues of liability and exoneration are dependent on the same evidence that will be presented to a jury if Ayala has the opportunity to have a jury decide on the elements of his claims and the damages owned to him. Hence, it is “reasonable and efficient” to have the jury sit for the trial from the beginning. The court concluded that it would decide the admiralty issues and that the jury would decide any other issues, to the extent allowed by any other findings of the court.
