Trial Court Finds Question of Fact in Determining Choice of Law: Lauritzen v. Larsen Factors Indecisive to Determine Choice of Law
Blythe v. Offshore Serv. Vessels, L.L.C., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71656; 2019 WL1903122 (E.D. La., April 29, 2019).
The plaintiff was acitizen of Panama and injured while working on a vessel in Trinidad Tobago. Healleged that the vessel owner, along with other parties, were liable forinjuries he sustained when a fire occurred aboard M/V AHTS EDISON CHOEST thirty-fivemiles off the coast of Trinidad Tobago. The suit was filed against OffshoreService Vessels, L.L.C. under the Jones Act general maritime law, as well asagainst Louisiana Machinery Company, LLC, Caterpillar Inc., and Massey Cat Ltd.under the laws of Trinidad and Tobago. The maritime law claims againstCaterpillar and Louisiana Machinery were previously dismissed as timebarred.
Louisiana Machinerybrought this motion to dismiss any claims based on the laws of Trinidad Tobagoand applied the factors delineated by the Supreme Court in the landmarkdecision Lauritzen v. Larsen[1] and its progeny.[2]
In applying the eightfactors,[3] the court found that twofactors favored the law of the U.S. (allegiance of the vessel owner and law ofthe forum[4]), but because the vesselwas a “non-traditional drill ship,” these had limited weight.[5] The court relied on Solano v. Gulf King 55[6], which found that ananchor handling vessel was more akin to a submersible rig than a “true maritimevessel” engaged in the “shipping industry.”[7] Five other factors wereeither neutral or inapplicable.[8]
The base of operationsfactor was the deciding factor. However, there was a question of material factregarding the base of operations test. As the vessel in this instance was anon-traditional vessel, “a court looks to the base of day-to-day operations asrelated to the specific claims against the party.”[9] The court then denied theMotion for Summary Judgment to dismiss the claims under Trinidad Tobago law.
[1] 345 U.S. 571 (1953).
[2] Romerov. Int’l Terminal Operating Co., 358 U.S. 354 (1959); HellenicLines Ltd. v. Rhoditis, 398 U.S. 306 (1970).
[3] 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71656, at *5.
[4] 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71656, at *25.
[5] 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71656, at *26.
[6] 212 F.3d 902 (5th Cir. 2000).
[7] 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71656, at *18.
[8] 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71656, at *26.
[9] 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71656, at *26 (citing Fogleman v. ARAMCO (Arabian Am. Oil Co.), 920 F.2d 278, 284 (5th Cir. 1991)).
