Court Denies Pilot’s MSJ to Dismiss Complaint For Alleged Gross Negligence

Marquette Transp. Co. Gulf-Inland LLC v. Navigation Mar. Bulgarea, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8325 *,  2022 WL 158681 (E.D. La. Jan. 18, 2022, Brown, J.).

S/S KIEFFER BAILEY (BAILEY) was proceeding down river in the center of the Mississippi River just below New Orleans when S/S STRANDIA allegedly crossed its path causing damage to BAILEY and personal injuries to members of her crew. Marquette Transportation (Marquette), as owner of BAILEY, filed suit in federal court in New Orleans for its alleged damages. Navigation Maritime Bulgarea answered and then filed a counterclaim against Marquette and BAILEY for its damages.

Marquette then answered and filed a third-party complaint against the owner of the tug assisting STRANDIA as well as against the pilot for gross negligence/willful misconduct. In response, the pilot filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment to Dismiss the claim for gross negligence.

In support of the MSJ, the pilot, though admitting a fact dispute existed, asserted that LSA-R.S. 34:1137 requires “clear and convincing evidence of gross negligence or willful misconduct which caused the damages in order to recover from a pilot. He claimed that there was no evidence to reach this burden of proof. 

Marquette responded that there is sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of fact and that the “clear and convincing evidence” standard of the state statute is pre-empted by the federal Supremacy Clause; and that under General Maritime Law the standard is by a preponderance of the evidence. In response, the pilot maintained that 46 U.S.C. § 8501(a) leaves regulation of pilots to the states.

Judge Brown, in denying the MSJ, stated that the objections of the pilot go to the weight of the evidence and that the arguments of the pilot are issues for a jury to determine and there is sufficient evidence for a jury to hold in favor of Marquette. There is sufficient evidence on the record to create a dispute of material fact including among other things that the crew on STRANDIA perceived he was in a hurry and even refused to follow his order to lift anchor before he boarded, that the pilot did not recall if he discussed with the master how he would depart the anchor area and admitted he was on his cell phone when the crew was warning him of the approach of BAILEY.

We would like to thank Adam Davis of Phelps Dunbar for bringing this case to our attention.