Young v. Moran Towing Corp. Opinion and Order.pdf

7/22/2019 Young v. Moran Towing Corp. Opinion and Order.pdf

1/97

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

---xIn the Matter of the Complaint of 10 Civ. 4844MOR N TOWING CORPORATION,as Owner and Opera tor of the TUG OPINIONTUREC MO GIRLS Exonera t ionfrom or Limita t ion of L i a b i l i t y

P e t i t i o n e r .x

A P P E A R A N C E S:Atto rne r P e t i t i o n e rCL RK TCHESON REISERT7800 River RoadNorth Bergen New Je rsey 07047By: Richard Joseph Rei se r t Esq.

Frank A. Atcheson

KREINDLER KREINDLER100 Park AvenueNew York NY 10017By: Daniel O. Rose Esq.

Megan Wolfe Benet t Esq.


2/97

Sweet D.J.Two ac t ions were t r i e d to t cour t from May 20, 2013

through June 4, 2013, the i t i o n for exonera t ion f i l ed by thepe t ioner Moran Towing Corporat ion ( Moran o r t

Pet i t ioner ) and a Jones Act and genera l mari t ime law ac tfor negl igence l ed by c la iman t Avr i l Young ( Avri l Young orthe CIa ) . These ac t ions a r i s e out of the crush ing todeath on December 27, 2011 of Ricardo Young ( Young or the

Decedent ) a khand who was entrapped in the s t an of theTurecamo Gir ls , a Moran tug Tug ) , by a towl ine undergrea t pressure during an improper ly conducted swing maneuver.

hor ror of t h i s i nc iden t s r a i s ed d i f f i c u l ti s sues which were presented with sk i l l by very competentadvocates . Upon a l l p r i o r proceedings and the f ac t s andconclus ions of law se t fo r th below, judgment 11 be ente red on

I f of Avr i l Young.

Prior Proceedings

n June 22, 2010, t Pet ioner f i l ed a Pe t i t i on forExonerat ion from or Limi ta t ion of L iab i l i t y in t h i s s t r i c t ,pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 30501 e t S and the var ious s t a tu t e sf


3/97

supplemental the re to and amendatory t he reo f , and Rule F of theSupplemental Rules for Admiral ty and Marit ime Claims ( Admira l tyRules ) a r i s ing out of the events surrounding Young's death.

n September 8, 2010, the Claimant , as admin i s t r a to rof the Esta te of Young, f i l ed an Answer admit t ing the casei s with in t h i s cou r t s admira l ty and mar i t j u r i s d i c t i onpursuant to 28 U S C 1333(1) , Rule 9(h) of t Federal Rulesof Civi l Procedure and Rule F of the Admiral ty Rules, anddemanded a t r i a l by j u ry . n t ha t same the Claimant f i l eda c la im on beha l f of the Esta te and on beha l f of the dece n t s

nor son, Nicholas Young ( Nicho sn , but a t t h a t t ime theClaimant had not yet been appointed as the 1 1 guardian ofNicholas or the adminis t ra tor of the Es ta t e .

n Ju ly 11, 2011, the Claimant , on I f of herse l f ,i nd iv idua l ly and as the admin i s t r a to r persona l

sen ta t of the a te of Young and a l l other wrongfuldeath n e f i c i a r s and he i r s , f i l ed a Fi r s t Amended Cla under

Jones Act, 46 U S C 30104 and genera l marit ime law anddemanded a t r i a l by ju ry . Pe t i t i one r then moved pursuan t toRules 12(f) and 39(a) (2) of the Federa l Rules of Civ i l Procedureto s t r i ke the Cla imant s demand for a j t r i a l on any i s sue s

2


4/97

pe r t a in ing to exonera t ion from o r l i m i t a t i o n o f l i a b i l TheClaimant then cross-moved pursuan t to Rules 38 and 39 o fFedera l Rules of Civ i l Procedure to empanel a j u ry to hea r and

r a v e r d i c t as to her c la ims under the Jones Act andgenera l mari t ime law.

opin of Apr i l 11, 2013 ( t Apri l 11 Opinion ) ,it was he ld t h a t t he r e i s no r igh t to a j u ry tri l on i s sues

r t a in ing to exonera t o r 1 t a t i o n o f l i a b i l i t y , bu t t h a tt he r e i s a r i g h t to a j u ry determina t ion a Jones Act ac t ion .

On Apr i l 16, 2013, Moran fil a motion fo r rti lsumma judgment . On May 1, 2013, Moran s motion was denied andon May 20, 2013, a f t e r the Claimant waived her j u ry demand, abench tri l was commenced on the i t i o n for exonera t ion andthe Jones Act and r a l mari t ime law ac t Both ac t ions weret r i e d to t h e co u r t from May 20, 2013 th rough June 4, 2013, p o s t -t 1 submiss ions were completed on August 9, 2013 and t h ep a r t i e s p res en t ed na l arguments on October 1, 2013 a t whit the ac t ions were cons ide red f u l l y submit ted .

3


5/97

The acts

In the ea r ly morning hours of December 27, 2009,Young, a deckhand, was crushed to death in the caps tan of theTug. (Jo in t Pr e t r i a l Order , St ipu la ted Facts , S t l a tFacts ; a t 1.) At the t ime of the f a t a l inc iden t , Tug waspushing the barge Lisa ( the Barge ) on a s ludge run down theHackensack River from a waste disposa l s i t e in L i t t l e Ferry , ewJe rsey to lson Avenue Newark, ew Je rsey . (S t ipula tedFacts a t 5.) The Tug and Barge depar ted L i t t l e Ferry j u s ta r midnight and were about an hour in to i t s voyage whenYoung's death occurred . (S t ipula ted Facts a t 8.) The crew onboard the Tug a t the t ime of the inc cons i s t ed of CaptainMichael Staszko ( Staszko ) , mate Phi l i p Allen ( Allen ) ,engineer Thomas Best ( Best ) , Young and deckhand Char s Taibi( Ta ib i ) . (S t ipula ted Facts a t 7.) At the t ime of Young'sdeath , Allen was in the upper wheelhouse opera t ing the Tug;Young was a t the r ea r ( a ) ck and Best was in h i s cabindoing paperwork. Staszko and Ta i were of f -du ty as leep .(S t ipula ted Facts a t 12.)

Staszko has been employed by Moran var iouscapac i t i e s s ince 1978, s t a r t i ng as khand and e leva ted to


6/97


7/97


8/97

of Moran and respons e for adminis te r ing Moran po l i c i e s andprocedures . Tr. Trans. a t 68.) Aside from t he capta in , a l lcrewmembers aboa Tug on the n ight of inc iden t ,inc luding eng ineer Best , were subjec t to l e n ' s orde rs . Tr.Trans. a t 67.) Bes t ' s primary respons l y on t he Tug was tomaintain i t s Tr. Trans. a t 196.) Best was ava i lto a s s i s t on k i f asked by the or mate. Tr. Trans.a t 198.) Deckhands aboard Moran tugboa ts handle l i nes , act aslookouts and do whatever e l se i s requi of them. Exhibi t 313,104. )

Tug was cons t ruc t in 1965, has two eng si s 91 long, 27 fee t wide, weighs 199 gross tons andproduces approximate ly 2,000 hors Tr. Trans. a t 68 69;Exhibi t s 7, 92.) The Barge i s approximately 272 f ee t long and 68fee t has a dr a f t o f 13 14 , and weighedapproximate ly 15 mi l l i on pounds on night of the

Tr. Trans. a t 69; 1271; Exhibi t 92, 9.) The Ba s nothave a t ha t would l ink Tug to the barge. Tr. Trans.a t 71; 296; Exhibi t 184, photo 12.) The bow of the has amarker ca t ing where t of the bow of t he Tug shouldl i ne up. Tr. Trans. a t 71.)

7


9/97

The Tug uses push gear to secure Barge to theTug. St ipu la t Facts 15.) When pushing down HackensackRiver, the bow of the T i s a l igned i n s t the bow sec t ion ofthe Barge. (Tr. Trans. a t 70.) bow of the Tug i s nota l igned aga ins t the s t e rn of the Ba , and the Barge i s i n s t ead

pushed backwards because t he re i s not enough room the vera t t I e to turn Barge around. (Tr. Trans. a t 72.)The push gear inc ludes push l i nes tha t run from the deck b i t son the bow sec t ion of Barge to the a f t quar te r b i t t s ofTug. St ipula ted Facts Jl 16.) The por t f t s ide) push l i ne i sa f ixed l i ne . St ipula ted Facts a t 17; Exhibi t 184, photo 31.)The s t a rboa rd r i s ide) push l i ne passes from the s t a rboa rda f t r t e r around the caps tan to the H-b i t t (so des igna tedpresumably because of i t s shape) . St ipu la t Facts a t Jl 19;Exhibi t 184, photo 33.) main towing l i nes , the push gear orpush s , are the Tug's ipment. JPTO 15, 16; Tr. Trans. a t18; 1026-127.) The s ta rboard sh r i s us t ab l e by use ofthe t an . S t ipula ted Facts a t Jl 18; Exhibi t 184, photo 33.)The capstan i s loca ted on t a f t k. (Tr. Trans. a t 1060;Exhibi t 384, photo 3.) The Tug has a ten horsepower caps tan . Acapstan i s a mechanical , e l ec t r i c a l ly -powered drum us to br ing

the s ta rboa push l i ne . (Tr. Trans. a t 74; 227.)8


10/97

When the Tug and Bar are secured to each o the r( made-up ) a t Ie Ferry , t he s t a rboa push l i n e passes fromthe s ta rboa a f t r t e r b i t on the Tug i s wrapped severa lt imes around t caps tan , and then t o f f on the H-b i t t .(S t ipu la ted Facts a t 19: 23.) The caps tan i s con t ro l by acaps tan con t ro l l e r which, on the night of the i nc iden t , was

loca ted approx t e l y 36 inches from t caps tan on t a f tbulkhead of the main house of the Tug. (S t ipu la t Facts a t20; i b i t 384, photo 3; 24.) The con t ro l l e r has t h reebu t tons : forwa reverse and s top . (Tr. Trans. a t 229: Exhib i t389, photo 26.) At the t of t i nc iden t , the forward ands top bu t tons were pa in ted white and the reverse but ton was

i n t ed b lack . (Exhibi t 389, photo 26. )

A swing maneuver i s used to br ing in s lack t ha t hasdeveloped in the s t a rboa rd push gear as t he Tug and Bamaneuver down the r r . In conduct ing the maneuver the Tugmakes th ree turns : t r s t , a swing to the r igh t , t second,a swing to the and the nal swing back r i g h t . (S t ipula tedFacts a t 22; 25; 31.) During t f i r s t r igh t t u rn , the Tug i stu rned (swung) to s ta rboard about 10-15 degrees with the s t e rnof the Tug swinging t o po r t , s t r e t c h i n g the s t a rboa rd towl ine as


11/97


12/97

maneuver. (Tr. Trans. a t 713; Exhibi t 304, Animation ofStandard Swing Maneuver.)

On the L i t t l e Ferry-Newark t r an s i t , t h i s swingmaneuver i s performed on the approach to the Jackkni fe Bridge,in the v ic in i t y of Buoy 18 because of the na tu ra l bend andwidening of the r ive r a t t h i s poin t . (Tr. Trans. a t 83; 91;1093; 1227-1228.) Under Moran's Safe ty Management System,codi f ied in i t s Opera t ions Pol icy and Procedures Manual( OPPM ), the naviga tor has d i sc r e t i o n to c a l l o u t secondperson to a t t end on the a f t deck during the l i ne t igh ten ing .(Exhibi t 313 5.2 .4 .1 . )

Prior to December 26, 2009, the Tug had towed theBarge from the sewage t r ea tment f a c i l i t y a t Wilson Avenue in

Newark, ew Je rsey to the sewage t r ea tment plan t in L i t t l eFerry , ew Je rsey v ia the Hackensack River . (Tr. Trans. a t 72. )On December 26, 2009, the Tug re turned to L i t t l e Ferry to p ickup the loaded Barge and de l ive r the Barge back to Wilson Avenue.(Tr. Trans . a t 22).

The Hackensack River i s t i d a l waterway and theL i t t l e Ferry-Newark t r i p i s known as t i de job , which must be

11


13/97

performed under flood t condi t ions to a l low for s u f f i c i en tdepth the r ive r to accommodate loaded Barge. Tr. Trans.a t 1074-1076.) The Tug a r r ived a t L i t t l e Ferry fore the t i dechanged from ebb meaning the water in t ver i s f lowingsouth or down r) to f lood when water i s f lowing nor thor upr ive r ) . Tr. Trans. a t 1076-1077.) Because t move i s a

t i d e job , i s always performed under su b s t a n t i a l l y s imi la rcondi t ions of t i d e and curren t . Tr. Trans. a t 80; 1075 1076.)

The Tug a r r ived a t L i t t l e Ferry on December 26, 2009a t about 11:00 p m 2300 hours) with Staszko and Taibi on thewat Tr. Trans. a t 72-73; 77; Exhibi t 13.) When the f loodt i de began, Staszko pos i t ioned the bow of t Tug aga ins t thebow sec t ion of the Barge, and deckhand Taibi made up connected)the Tug to Barge, ass i s t ed by two men aboard t Barge. Tr.Trans. a t 1073-1074.) The men on t barge worked for

rase rve , the opera tor of the Barge and not Moran. .Allen and Young were of f duty during the Tug and Ba make upprocedure .

Taib i handled the l i nes on the Tug and the Barge ' screw handl the 1 s pass from the Tug to the Barge. Tr.Trans. a t 1026-1027.) During the make-up process , the Tug was

12


14/97

maneuvered so t ha t Taibi could pass the Tug s por t push l i ne tothe Barge where the l i ne was secured to a b i t t near the cornero f the Barge. (Tr. Trans. a t 1027; 1079 1080; 260; 354; 355;356; Exhib i t 84, photos 30-32.) Taib i then secured the por t pushl ine to a b i t t on the por t s te rn of the Tug. (Tr. Trans. a t10275; 1079 1080.) The por t push l i n e was a f ixed l i n e securedby hand (without the use of the capstan) and once made f as t , wasnot ad jus ted during the t r i p . (Tr. Trans. a t 136.)

After the por t push l i n e was secured , Staszkomaneuvered the Tug so t ha t Taibi could pass one end o f t Tug ss ta rboard push l i n e to the Barge, where t was made f as t . (Tr.Trans. a t 1027; 1079-1080.) The s t a rboa rd push l i ne wascomprised o f a shor ter Kevlar l i ne with a loop or eye a t one endt ha t i s secured to t Barge. A shack i s f ixed to the o the rend of the Kevlar (Tr. Trans. a t 74; 101; Exhibi t 184,photo 6.) A seven-inch po lyes t e r l i ne with an eye sp l i ced in toone end i s then secured to the Tug s s t a rboa rd a f t qua r t e r b i t ,led four t imes through the shackle , then l ed around the qua r t e rb i t t to the Tug s caps tan . (Tr. Trans. a t 74; 139-140; 1081;Exhibi t 184 photos 28, 33.) This fou r -pa r t l i n e a lso known as afou r -pa r t purchase) c rea tes a mechanica l advantage wi th ther e su l t t h a t any fo rces appl ied to the l i n e a t the corner of the

13


15/97

Barge are reduced by a fac to r four when the l i ne i s broughtto the caps tan . (Tr. Trans. a t 139-140; 1329.)

After se t t i n g up the s t a rboa rd push gear , Ta ib i l edthe t a i l end of the seven inch pol s t e r l i ne around the Tug'ss t a rboa rd s te rn qua r t e r b i t t and then to the caps tan . (Tr.Trans. a t 1081.) Taib i made t h ree t o four c lockwise t u rns aroundthe capstan with the l i n e and ac t t ed the caps tan s forwardbut ton causing the push l ine to draw t i g h t . (Tr. Trans. a t1028.) Taib i added add i t i ona l c lockwise t u rns of around thecaps tan u n t i l t caps tan was fu l l . (see Tr. Trans. a t 140-141;1028.) At t h i s poin t , the re were f t u rns on the caps tan .(Tr. Trans. a t 142; 1028; 1212-1213; 1317; 1332; Exhib i t s 354;184, photo 33; 336, photo 006; 344, photos 049, 051.)

After Taib i f i l l e d up caps tan he secured the t a i lend of the l i n e to the H-bi t t l oca t on the c e n t e r l ofTug c lose to the Tug's a f t e r bulkhead. Taib i made the l ine fa s twith t h r ee f igu re -e igh t tu rns with add i t i ona l t u rns up to thetop of the v e r t i c a l pos t . (Tr. Trans. a t 1033; see e .g .Exhibi t s 336, photos 005 and 014; 344, photo 053.)

14


16/97


17/97


18/97


19/97

Young pushed the forward bu t ton on t he caps tanc o n t r o l l e r took in the s lack . (Tr. Trans. a t 293.) After

the capstan andbegan to ta of f the 1 on the H-b i t t . 2 Young beganunwrapping the H-b i t t . len proceeded with l e f t t u rnapprox e ly 35 to 60 seconds . (Tr. Trans. a t 94; 99; 312.)

the s lack of 1-2 f ee t was t a n in Young s t

e r pu t t ing in the l e f t rudder , Allen wanted Tugand Barge to swing towa h i s ta a se t of condos on theeas t e rn s ide of the Hac sack River near Jackni fe Br(Tr. Trans . a t 105i Exh it 5.) During t l e f t t u rn , Tugand Ba began to swi pas t the condos and p a s t thecourse , towards a sha l low 14-15 ' deep mound near the eas te rnbank the r ive r . (Tr. Trans . a t 105-106. ) Afte r the l eswing went too f a r pas t the condos, Allen then put in r i

r to check the swing a l though had not yet rece iveda l l - f a s t c a l l Young. (Tr. Trans. a t 99; 102; 130.)

Because of Young's dea th and t he absence of any eyewi tnesses , the f indingsYoung's ac t s are based on the es tab l i shed fac t s and the l og ica l

infe rences from those fac t s . (Tr. Trans. a t 92; 101; 293. ) ; see a1so Mi11erv. Phi l l ip 813 F. . 2d 470, 477 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (a fact f inder i se n t i t l e d to draw reasonable , l og ica l , proper , j u s t inferences from fac ts

had a l ready found, but i s not al lowed to specula te or jump beyondt he log ica l extens ion and conclus ion of t he fac t s ) ; Peop1e v. Benzinger36 N.Y.2d 29, 32 (N.Y. 974) (an infe rence must only be drawn fror:1 a provenf ac t or fac t s and then i the infe rence f lows na tu ra l ly , reasonably and1 ca l ly fror:1 t he proven fact or fac t s , not i it i s specu la t ive ) .

18


20/97

r pu t t ing in r igh t Allen to no t i celoss of con t ro l of the Barge and Tug and saw t he por t push gearin the water (Tr. Trans. a t 99; 101; 287) , which i nd i ca t ed t ha t

s ta rboard push l i ne was not t au t . Barge and Tugcont inued moving toward the eas t bank of t r i v e rs i g n i f i c a n t l y of f the cur ren t and swung upwa of 50 or moreof f the cur ren t . (Tr. Trans. a t 287.)

When Allen commenced the r igh t tu rn and as the Tug ss te rn swung to por t the rces on the towl ine cau the 1to s t a r t to p u l l 0 the caps tan . Young s t a r t ed to radio Allenand got ent rapped in towline a e r 20 f ee t paid out . Twomore tu rns of the caps tan pa id out as Young was s zed todeath and 30-50 of l i ne paid out as t he s t a rboa rd l i n e cames l ack moving t h e r e a f t e r response to the movements of Tugand Barge. (Tr. Trans. a t 301; 314.)

Allen concluded t something had gone wrong ona f t deck and a t tempted seve ra l t imes to c a l l Young on the radiobut rece no response . (Tr. Trans. a t 104; 151.) len hadno s tee r ing l i t y because the Tug and Ba were nott i g h t l y connected. (JPTO 31; Tr. Trans. a t 151-152; 155.)

19


21/97

Allen then rushed down to the a f t deck. (Tr. Trans . a t 106;156.) I t took Allen about s ix ty to n ine ty seconds to a r r ivethe re from the wheelhouse. (Exhibi t 190 a t 10 ( r e fe r r ing toAllen depos i t ion test imony .

hen Allen ar r ived on the por t s ide of the a f t deck,he walked toward the capstan on the a f t s ide of the H-b i t t , andnot iced t ha t tu rns l i ne had been removed from the H-b i t t .(Tr. Trans. a t 107-9.) e did not see Young as he walked towardthe area in between the H-b i t t and caps tan . (Tr. Trans. a t109.) The l i ne between the H-b i t t and the caps tan was s l ack andon the deck. (Tr. Trans. a t 110.) Allen then walked d i r ec t l ybetween the H-b i t t and caps tan over the towl ine . (Tr. Trans. a t111.) Allen did not see Young un t i l he brushed up aga ins t himand saw him caught in the caps tan . (Tr. Trans. a t 109-110.)Young s body was e l eva t ed of f the deck and fac ing a and hishead was on the forward por t ion of the caps tan a t the 12 o c lockpos i t ion . (Tr. Trans. a t 99; 110; Exhib i t s 6, 14.) Al len thenle the a f t deck to get Best and Staszko. (Tr. Trans. a t 112.)

Best a r r ived on the por t s ide of the a f t deck andproceeded behind the H-b i t t and ar r ived a t the caps tan . (Tr.Trans. a t 199-200.) Staszko came down the s t a rboa rd s ide . (Tr.

20


22/97


23/97


24/97

was scovered t ha t caps tan could not be opera ted in thereverse d i rec t ion . n engine room i n spec t ion by Best and theCoast Gua i nves t i ing of f i ce r conf i rmed t ha t the caps tan ' sreverse re y had over loaded and t r i pped out . (Tr. Trans. a t158; 1101-1102; 1301-1303; Exh t s 191, 194); (Tr. Trans. a t160; 234-235; 235; 1102; 1234-1238; 1310; 1320.)

Moran suggests t ha t s r e s u l t because Younginco r rec t ly pressed reverse bu t ton ins of the rwardbu t ton when he i n i t i a t e d the capstan, and t h i s was the cause ofthe l i ne paying of f and Young's subsequent death. Yet, t he re i snot any evidence presented as to a cause for the t r i p soknown as a thermal over load ) , s ince ne i the r one t u rn of the

around t H-b i t t nor Young's 200 pound body t rapped in thecapstan would provide necessary t ens ion for an over load . (Tr.Trans. a t 307-308.) Nor was a hockle or asshole found inthe towl , which could have caused the over load t ha t night .(Tr. Trans. a t 223.) Moreover, i f the towl ine was s lack a f t e rYoung had been entrapped, as Allen t e s t i f i ed , the towlinecould not have caused the thermal overload to t r i p , s inorder to t the overload, t he re needed to be t ens ion or loadon the t a i l i n g s ide of the capstan. (Tr. Trans. a t 307-08. )The s ta rboard gear would a l so have had to go s lack f i r s t as

23


25/97

l i n e paid out In reverse , but Allen has no r e c o l l e c t i o n of t ha t ,only tha t the por t gear went s l ack , which i s cons i s t en t i n s t eadwith Cla iman t ' s theory o f a p u l l o f f of the s t a rboa rd pushunder grea t load ing . (Tr. Trans . a t 104; 319.)

Fur ther , dur ing t e s t i ng by C la im an t ' s ex p e r t aboardthe Tug, the caps tan would not s t a l l , l e t a lone t r i p the thermalove oad, with one o r two t u rns on the H-b i t t . (Tr . Trans . a t289-290; Exhib i t 309.) In f ac t , Dr. David Tantrum ( Tantrum ) ,Moran's exper t , acknowledged t h a t a l i ne with one t u rn o r oneand a h a l f t u rns on the H-b i t t would not cause the l i n e to gohard, as requi red by Moran's reverse bu t ton theory . oevidence was adduced i n d i c a t i n g a cause for the l i ne to go hardto s t a l l the caps tan . (Tr. Trans . a t 71.) Addi t iona l ly , iYoung mis taken ly opera ted the caps tan in reverse and got caughtin the caps tan r o t a t i n g in reverse , the only fo rces on Young[would have been] the weight of the push a r and the r e s i s t a n c eof f e r ed by one f igu re e igh t on the h - b i t t , which would Idsqueeze fo rces o f approximately 3 .5 to 6.7 PSI, not enough tocause Young's crush ing i n j u r i e s . (Tr. Trans. a t 305; 318.)

Young's body pos i t i on ing , in t ha t he r o t a t e d in thecaps t an from t he 12 o ' c lock to the 7 o ' c lock pos i t i on , a l so

24


26/97


27/97


28/97


29/97

i n j u r i e s would have caused Young d i f f i c u l t y brea t but hecould st ll have taken in some oxygen whi le being compressed.(Zhang Oep. Tr. a t 823.) The an l i n e funct as atourn ique t , al lowing blood to cont inue to c i r c u l a t e to Young'shear t and bra in while he was being compressed. Z Dep. Tr.a t 44; 54; 56.)

Dr. Zhang noted t ha t pe tech ia l hemo sobserved t he post-mortem na t ion i nd i ca t ed asqueezing of body and a con t i hea r tbea t . (Tr. Trans. a t823; 826.) While the hea r t con t inues to bea t , t pre l l ypumps blood to b ra in so t h a t t n can con t inue to beoxygenated. (Tr. Trans. a t 824; 827.) Based on the pe themorrhages, ion of the t raumat ic i n ju r i e s and tabsence of blood below the to rso , Dr. Zhang concluded t ha t Youngwas consc ious for more than two minutes . (Zhang Dep. Tr. a t 56-59; Tr. Trans. a t 825-26; 829.)

Dr. Ba l i n g e r ( Dr. Bol l i rl t) , Cla imant sforens ic pathology r t , a l so o f fe red r opinion t h a t Young

been able to remain consc ious for a t l ea s t two minutesfo l lowing his ent (Tr. Trans. a t 828-829). Dr.

l inge r based her conc ion t ha t Young was conscious for two28


30/97


31/97


32/97

c red ib l e evidence of t Cla imant ' s exper t , khardt( Eckhardt ) , es i the value of the ing forces .

The primary purpose of the caps tan i s to pu l l a load .(Tr. Trans. a t 291.) When t he re are s u f f i c i en t w around thecapstan and s u f f i c i en t ck t ens ion on the t a i l s ide , then itcan p u l l up to the I t of i t s horsepower, or in t h i s case5,500 pounds (cons i s ten t with a t en horsepower s tan) . (Tr.Trans. a t 291.) The an has a r e s i s t an t fo rce av i lydependent on the coef f i c i en t of f r i c t i on of the type ofw d around it (Tr. Trans. a t 293.) When Young wason the capstan , t he re was one f igu re -e igh t t u rn on t tt

.) Based on the knowledge t t he rope pu l l s o f fwith two tu rns on h - b i t t , the type of and the

t ha t the holding fo rce was 5,5000 pounds, Bart Eckha( Eckhardt ) , Cla imant ' s exper t , appl ied a formula to nea for the coef f i c i en t of f r i c t i o n of the rope. Id . edete ned t ha t the coef f i c of i c t i o n of the rope us was

.19 and .22 , but most l i ke ly oser to .19. (Tr. Trans.a t 293; Exhibi t 392.) Addi t iona l s t a rboa rd towl ranthrough a fou r -pa r t purchase on s way from the Barge tocapstan , which prov ides a four - to-one mechanica l advantage ofthe caps tan . (Tr. Trans. a t 301-02; i b i t 184, photo 28.)

31


33/97

With t h i s in fo rmat ion Eckhardt ca l cu l a t ed how much the capstancould hold with four tu rns and with f ive turns with the maximumback t ens ion of fe red by one f igure e igh t t u rn on the H-b i t t .Id . Accounting for the fou r -pa r t makeup s inc reased holding

power in h i s ca lcu la t ions Eckhardt t e s t i f i e d t ha t the ac tua lforce exer ted by the caps tan or what the capstan i s capable ofholding compared to what forces t i s sub jec ted to i s 5,5000t imes four , or 22,000 pounds. (Tr. Trans. a t 302.) Thus, i fthe fo rces exer ted on the capstan by the cur ren t and the Bargewere grea te r than 22,000 pounds, then the l i ne would be able topu l l of f . (Tr. Trans. a t 299; Exhibi t 90.)

The cur ren t of the Hackensack River was f lowing a t 56degrees t rue and the rec ip roca l heading was 222 degrees t rue .(Tr. Trans. a t 286; Exhibi t 91.) The in tended course of theBarge and Tug toward the Jackni fe Bridge was 201 degrees t rueor 21 degrees of f the cur ren t . (Tr. Trans. a t 287; Exhibi t 91.)During the f i r s t tu rn of the swing maneuver, t he un i t swungapproximately f ive degrees to the r igh t . (Tr. Trans. a t 721.)At t ha t poin t immediately p r i o r to beginning the l e f t (second)turn the Barge and Tug were on an angle approximate ly f ive toten degrees of f the cur ren t . (Tr. Trans. a t 287; Exhibi t 91.)

32


34/97

The Barge and Tug were a t t h a t ang le fo r approx imate ly 35-60seconds . (Tr. Trans . a t 94; 99. ) un i t was approx ima te ly 20degrees o f f the cur when on a l i n e toward t h e b r i d g e . (Tr.Trans . a t 287; 298; Exhib i t s 5, 91.) The u n i t was approx ima te ly30 degrees o f f cur r en t when t was on a towards thecondos. (Tr. Trans . a t 298; Ex h ib i t s 5, 91.) When Al len l e f tto go to t he a deck a r r e a l i z something was wrong, t h eu n i t was a t about 171 degrees t rue , no more 50 es o f ft he cur r en t . (Tr. Trans . a t 287; Ex h ib i t s 5, 91. ) Allenr e c a l l see ing the Barge and Tug swing pas t h i s l i n e to thecondos , ea t ing t h a t he put in r i g h t rudder when t h e Tug andthe Barge were more than 30 degrees o f f the c u r r e n t . (Tr. Trans .a t 105.)

At 10 degrees o f f cur r en t , the Barge and cur r en twere exe r t ing approx ima te ly 39,000 pounds on the caps tan . (Tr.Trans . a t 299; Exhib i t 85. ) At 20 o f f the c u r r e n t , t h e Bargeand cur r en t were exe r t ing approx ima te ly 81,000 pounds on thecaps t an . (Tr. Trans . a t 299; Exhib i t 86. ) At 30 o f f thecur r en t , the Barge and cur r en t were e x e r t i n g approximat y170,000 pounds on the t an . Exhib i t 89. ) At 40 o f f thecur r en t , the Barge and cur r en t were exe r t ing approx ima te ly219,000 pounds on the caps tan . Exhib i t 89. ) At 50 o f f t he

33


35/97

cur ren t , the Barge and current were exe r t i ng approximate ly279,000 pounds on the capstan. (Exhibi t 89.)

ue to the 4-pa r t purchase, each of the previous f iveca lcu la t ions must be divided by 4 (Tr. Trans. a t 305.) Evenwith t h i s d iv i s ion , the pu l l i ng forces on the caps tan weregrea te r than the holding forces a t every 10 i n t e rv a l s t a r t i n ga t 20 degrees , or when a t l ea s t 20,000 pounds of fo rce from the

pu l l i ng forces (81,000 d iv ided by four) were ac t ing on acapstan with four tu rns around t and with a conserva t ive back-tens ion approach. (Tr. Trans. a t 299-300; 305.) At anglesbeyond the l ine to the br idge , or approximate ly 21 degrees on,the force was s u f f i c i en t to pu l l the l i ne of f of the capstan.(Tr. Trans . a t 300.) Assuming t he re were f ive turns around thecapstan , Eckhardt t e s t i f i e d t ha t under the conserva t ive approach

(with maximum holding power on the H-b i t t ) , the l i ne would payoff a t 50 off the cur ren t . (Tr. Trans. a t 392.) To ensure aconserva t ive assessment , the assumption t ha t f ive turns werearound the capstan i s adopted.

I f t he re was s l ack between the H-b i t t and the caps tan(as the re would have been had Young been untying the wrapsaround the caps tan) , the holding forces would drop cons iderably ,

34


36/97

and the l i ne would p a y o u t a t an angle of f the cur ren t of l e s sthan 50 . (Tr. Trans. a t 392-93. ) The t ime t would t ake theun i t to swing of f the cur ren t to i t s pas ion a t 171 degreest rue was approximate ly 45 seconds and, a f t e r Allen ente red thef ina l r i gh t rudder , would take approximate ly 15-18 secondsfor the l i ne to pu l l o f f the caps tan . (Tr. Trans. a t 301.)Thus, even with f ive tu rns on the caps tan , the forces exer ted onthe capstan when Al put in r i gh t rudder were enough toovercome the holding of the caps tan , or the 22,000 pounds,and cause the l i ne to pu l l of f .

Fur ther , the 30-50 f ee t of l i ne t ha t pul led of f wascons i s t en t with the angle of the Tug in r e l a t i on to the Bargefo l lowing the l a s t r igh t tu rn by Allen . (Tr. Trans. a t 315.)The 30 50 e t o f l i ne corresponds to a d i f fe rence ofapproximate ly 10 f ee t in l eng th between the f ron t , r i gh t cornerof the Barge in re l a t ion to the Tug) and the r igh t quar t e r h-b i t t of the Tug, due to the four -par t purchase. (Tr. Trans. a t302-303; 315.) For every 10 f ee t of separa t i on between thef ront , r igh t corner o f the Barge and the Tug s r i gh t quar te rb i t t s , 4 f ee t of rope wil l come of f the caps tan because of thefour - to-one makeup of the push gear .

35


37/97

The physics and fo rce ca lcu la t ions comported with t hedesc r ip t ions from c t witnesses and es t l i s h t ha t , to areasonable degree of ce r t a in ty , the towline pul led of f thecaps tan as a res t of Allen pu t t ing in r igh t rudder to checkthe l e f t swing before ing the a l l fa s t from Young, thecapstan not yet being secure . (Tr. Trans. a t 327.) Because

re i s no notch in bow of the Barge in whi tow canembedded, the of the Tug aga Barge

depend[s] pure ly on t ens ion of the l i nes . (Tr. Trans. a t296.) The ca lcu la t ions as to the re su l t i ng t ens ion on l inesconf i rm the explana t ions by t he Claimant , as shows

t the forces were high enough when Allen turned a t more than30 degrees to pu l l the of f caps tan . (Tr. Trans. a t293 94.)

Moran's exper t , Tantrum, in turn ca lcu la ted t h a twas not enough force exer ted the l i ne to pu l l o f f

s tan . Tantrum acknowledged t h is ca lcu la t ion of tcoef f i ent of f r i c t i o n was inco r rec t based on using the wrongtype rope, and t h a t Eckhardt ' s ca l a t ions were cor rec t asto s number, but with re to t overa l l ca lcu la t ions ,account ing the four -par t pu se , Tantrum t e s t i f i e d t ha tthe re was only 3,437 lbs ac t ing on caps tan . (Tr. Trans. a t

36


38/97

43-44.) Because the holding force of the caps tan i s 22,000 lbs ,the capstan would be able to hold the load and the l i ne wouldnot pu l l of f .

Tantrum s theory i s precluded by t f ac t s ast e s t i f d to by the eye witnesses and by the sp e c i f i cc i rcumstances of the acc ident .

Tantrum, unl ike Eckhardt , did not base h i sca l cu l a t i ons on the medical evidence es tab l i sh ing Young si n j u r i e s . (Tr. Trans . a t 55. ) The medical evidence shows t ha tthe Young s i n j u r i e s are only poss ib l e as a r e s u l t of the fo rcespresent in Cla ima nt s theory . (Tr. Trans. a t 56. ) squeezeforce under Tantrum s p a y o u t theory , con t ras t , i s notsu f f i c i e n t to cause Young s crushing i n j u r s . (Tr. Trans. a t319.) Tantrum t e s t i f i e d t h a t he did not inves t iga te or looki n to whether t h i s medical evidence was accura te , or whether hist ry could poss y c rea t e the i n ju r s t h a t Young su f fe red .(Tr. Trans . a t 55-56.)

Tant rum s theory a l so does not comport with thees t ab l i shed f ac t s of Young s body pos i t i on ing and the s l ack inthe l i n e a t the t ime of Young s dea th . Allen t e s t i f i e d t ha t

37


39/97

when he found Young s body, the l i ne was s l ack , with a t l e a s tsome 30-50 of l i n e on t he ground, which he had to walk overto reach Young. (Tr. Trans. a t 51. ) Tant rum s c a l c u l a t i o n s areba on the l i ne be ing t au t . (Tr. Trans. a t 52.) I f the l i newas s lack , as Allen t stifi , T a n t r u m admi t t ed t ha t h i s theorydoes not hold and cannot account for the some 30 50 f e e t o f l i nefound a t Young s dea th . (Tr. Trans. a t 56-57. ) Tant rum stheory l ikewise d i scoun ts t es t imony of Al len , Best andStaszko, t h a t Young was facing s t a rboa rd when he was found, andt ha t h i s body r o t a t e d in the caps tan from a 12 o c l o c k p o s i tto an 8 o c l o c k pos ion , br ing ing the l i ne from s l ack to t a u t .(Tr. Trans . a t 53.) I f Young s body did ro t a t e , as a l l t h reeeye witnesses t e s t i f y to , Tantrum acknowledges t ha t h i s theoryf a i l s . Id .

In addi t ion , Tant rum s c a l c u l a t i o n s r e l a t i ng to thefour purchase il to t ake i n to account the i f i cc i rcumstances a f c t i ng the on the l i n e s and the caps tana t t ime of Young s de (Tr. Trans. a t 48 Tantrumopined t h a t the four r t make up would reduce the ad a t the

an as oppo to t l ine on the rge, which would bebarge. Id . The fo rce of F-barge was c a l c u l a t e d as t h r u s tof 10,000 pounds by a moment arm of 4, o r 44 by 10,000, which

38


40/97

would rn the F-ba 32,000 by t l i n e on t ba (Tr.Trans. a t 49.) At i s poin t , Tantrum exp la ined t h a t the sum ofthe moments equals zero, as 44,000 mul t ip l i ed by 10,000should equal to 32 f ee t , which i s the moment arm byor load of 13,750. Id . F-barge, or t 13,750 ca l cu l a t edby Tantrum, i s force t ha t would be in s ing le l i ne . (Tr.Trans. a t 50; 436.) Since the fo rce on the s t an goes throughthe four par t l ineup, Tantrum then d iv ided 13,750 by four toge t 3,437 pounds. (Tr. Trans . a t 49.) Because the holding

ce of the caps tan i s about 22,000 pounds, as agreed to byboth Tantrum and Eckhardt, wi th Tant rum s ca lcu la t ions , i s3,437 pounds would not be enough t he l i n e to pu l l o f f thecapstan or Cla iman t s theory to hold . (Tr. Trans. a t 49-50.)

These ca lcu la t ions re ing to the four r t purchaseare from per c t of co rner of the Barge, not the

tan , and do not c to r i n the ou ts i forces ac t ing oncapstan a t t ime of Young s a th . (Tr. Trans. a t 69.) The13,750 Ibs ca lcu la t ion assumes the Tug and Barge are balancedunder p e r f e c t l y executed swing maneuver where t he caps tan i ssecure . (Tr. Trans. a t 437.) The 13,750 Ibs a t F-barge doesnot take in to account the inf luence of the cur ren t or fo rces

39


41/97


42/97

only see 10 f ee t . (Tr. Trans. a t 68.) However, i s f i gu reI s to ca lcu la te in the four purchase , which would cause

the 10 to t r ans l a t e in to 40 fee t of l i ne . Id.) Tantrumt ha t s was inco r rec t . Id. Tantrum s theory a l so

r e s t s on t assumption t ha t Young h i t the reverse but ton of thecaps tan . (Tr. Trans. a t 57 58; 71-72.) The f ac t s as foundabove prec l t h i s assumption.

In add i t ion to Tantrum s ca l a t ions , Moran a l soroduced a video simu ion to show t h a t the caps tan can hold

the th four or f ive tu rns under the normal rcumstancesof a swing maneuver. (Tr. Trans. a t 47.) This deo, though,

i l s to i c a t e the spec i f i c circumstances t he n igh t of theinc t ha t con t r ibu ted to Young s dea th . Spec i f i ca l ly , the

does not document the Tug swinging l e f t too f a r pas tin tended course , or l en a t t empt ing t o co r rec t t h i s e r ro r bypu t t i ng in the r igh t rudder too ea r ly and before he had rece

a l l - f a s t from Young, r e su l t in Allen no t i c ing a loss ofcon t ro l of the Barge and the Tug. (Tr. Trans. a t 99; 101; 287.)

iman t ' s was ba on the f ac t s on the eveningof Young s death as t e s t i f i e d to by both Best and Allen . (Tr.Trans . a t 27 32.) Cla imant ' s video showed t h a t Al did not

41


43/97


44/97


45/97

c e r t i f i c a t e of compliance the Tug under the ISM (Tr. Trans.a t 1399-1400; Exhibi t 305) , and t Respons Car r ie r Program( RCP ) . (Tr. Trans. a t 1399.)

ISM Code requ i re s for shipboard opera t ions ,company should es t ab l i sh procedures , plans and

i n s t ruc t ions , inc luding check l i s t s as appropr i a t e , r keyshipboard opera t ions concerning t sa fe ty of the personne l .(Tr. Trans. a t 1400.) Moran did not a r i sk assessmenta swing maneuver and did not view a swing maneuver as a keyshipboard ope ra t ion . (Tr. Trans. a t 1404.) ISM Code a lsorequi res t ha t Moran assess a l l i den t i ed r i sks to i t s sh[and] pe r sonne l . (Tr. Trans. a t 1402; Exhibi t 305.) A jobhaz ana lys i s would list the fo l lowing: 1) t s t eps t ocomplete the t a sk ; (2) the zards t h a t might a r i s e i the

r a t ion wrongi and (3) the precau t i measures neededto t i ga t e the r i sk s . (Tr. Trans. a t 629, 642.) Moran d notemploy a job hazard ana lys i s r l i ne handl ing inc luding the

ng maneuver, desp the f ac t t h a t the swing maneuverconducted by Moran i s the type of ra t ion t i s amenable toa job hazard ana l i s because i s a t a sk t ha t involves a

s tan t ha t comes under heavy I and s t r a (Tr. Trans. a t624; 640.)

44


46/97


47/97

procedures . (Tr. Trans. a t 1405-1406; Exhibi t 178.)sa y meetings conducted by Capta in Staszko accordance withMoran's d i rec t ives in the year pr io r to Young's death did notcover any sa y concerns . (Tr. Trans. a t 1137-1138; Exhibi t258.) o Port Advisory concerned l i ne -hand l ing gene ra l ly orcapstan opera t ions spe f i ca l Fur ther , the sa fe ty t op i c s

year preceding Young's death never cover caps tanopera t ions . (Tr. Trans. a t 1046-1047; Exhib i t s 178, 258.)

Moran a l so did not have wri t t en procedures i n s t ruc t ingthe mate or capta in a t the con t ro l s during swing maneuver t h a t

was necessary to wait for an a l l s t c a l l before comingback r igh t . (Tr. Trans. a t 713, 1412.) I t i s es s en t i a l to have

pos i t ive communicat ions throughout the en t i r e swing maneuverbecause deckhands are respons ib for l i nes under s t r a in , andthe l i ne must be secure be the maneuver can proceed. Tr .Trans. a t 642; 713; 715.) Ot rwise the gear could s l out andsubjec t crewmembers on deck to a l hazards . (Tr. Trans. a t632; 643.)

In add i t i on to lack gui l i nes and sa fe typrocedures , swing maneuvers and swing gear in genera l a reant iqua ted , and most tugboat companies have replaced boa ts using

46


48/97

the ng maneuver with sa r , more rugged, more r e l i ab l emethods, which using aves and a tow drum i s a l o t s t ronger .(Tr. Trans. a t 640.) Moran i s thus par t of the minor y oftugboat companies t ha t st ll employ swing maneuver.

Moran was aware of a t l e a s t seven i nc i s pr ior toYoung's death where Moran employees were in j dur ing capstanopera t ions . (Tr. Trans. a t 1417-1419.) Moran was also aware ofa 2005 inc ident which a khand from another tugboatcompany, K-Sea, got crushed in a t an aboa the tug sSea while handl ing I s (Tr. Trans. a t 1419-1420.) Afte rt ha t inc ident , Moran st ll did not i s sue any Port Advisory orchange in way the manner in which t a sks involv ing s a n dcaps tans , inc luding the swing maneuver, were t r a orconducted. (Tr. Trans. a t 1402-1421.)

With respec t to the equipment used on the Tug,t r i angu la r area between the capstan, h-b i t t and caps tancon t ro l l e r crea a danger zone in which Young worked. (Tr.Trans. a t 328; Exhib i t 384, photos 3, 6.) On severa l otherMoran and other company tugs , the con t ro l l e r s were up to 6-7fee t away from capstans. (Tr. Trans. a t 558 61.) OSH

47


49/97

i n v e s t i g a t the Tug fo l lowi Young s dea th c i t e d Moran rfu rn i sh ing Young with an unsa workspace, in l a t i o n o f 29CFR 1910.212, sp e c i f i c a l l y sec t ion 5(a) (1) o f Occupat iona lSafe ty and I t h Act o f 1970. (Tr. Trans. a t 330; Exhib i t167.) OSH s t a t e d t h a t the khand o p e ra t ed an e l e c t r i c a l l ypowered an t h a t had no gua ng to preven t employeefrom being i n to the n ip p o i n t . (Exh ib i t 1 .J AfterYoung s dea th , caps t an c o n t r o l l e r was r e loca to an a reabehind the H-b i t t , t he reby al low a deckhand to work ou t s ideo f the danger zone. (Tr. Trans. a t 225; 336; Exhib i t 390, photo20.

Regard i Young s persona l li and f i n a n c i a lrcumstances , Young suppor ted a ly f i n a n c i a l l y dependent on

h He was mar to Avri l Young. two met as r sand were marr ied t h r ee yea rs l a t e r , 1972. (Tr . Trans. a t902-03.) Though Av r i l had a son from a r r e l a t i o n s h thiswas the f i r s t marr i fo r both Avri l and the Decedent . (Tr.Trans . a t 903.) They were a c lo s e couple , f r i ends as wel l as

es , t a l k i n g by phone every day t h a t Young was on the Tug.(Tr. Trans . a t 72; 930.)

8


50/97

Soon a f t e r marrying, in the f a l l of 1972, Avr i l gaveb i r t h to Young's daughter , She i la . From the t ime She i l a was ayoung chi ld , she and Young were very c lose , Young cooked for

i l a and Don, A v r i l s son, helped with the house work andshared parent ing r e s pons ib i l i t i e s with Avri l . (Tr. Trans. a t904-05. i l a su f fe from se i zu re s as a baby and when shes t a r t e d school the Youngs d iscovered t ha t she had l ea rn ingd i s a b i l i t i e s . (Tr. Trans. a t 907. i l a was sent to a schoolfor chi ldren with spec ia l needs when she was between 10 and 12

rs old . (Tr. Trans. a t 907.) She did not gradua te from highschool , nor has she ever held a job . (Tr. Trans. a t 911; 988.)Shei la has a daughter , Katelyn Rebecca, Young's only grandchi ld ,

who i s almost f ive years old . (Tr. Trans. a t 987.)

Avr i l moved to the United Sta tes in 1996. (Tr. Trans.a t 905.) Before Young jo ined her here , the two spoke on thete lephone and Avr i l would v i s i t him in Guyana every year . (Tr.Trans. a t 940.) While Avr i l l i ved the Unit Sta tes , Youngl i ved in Guyana with A v r i l s s i s t e r . (Tr. Trans. a t 940; 943.)During t h i s t ime, Young had a ch i ld , Nicholas Young( Nicholas U , with another woman, Carol McDonald ( McDonald U .(Tr. Trans. a t 913.) Nicholas was born on January 25, 1997.(Tr. Trans. a t 913.) Though Young cont inued to main ta in con tac t

49


51/97

with McDonald, he and Avr i l never contemplated divorce . Tr.Trans. a t 929; 943; 983.)

Young fol lowed h i s Wl Avr i l to the United Sta tes ,l ega l ly immigrat ing, in 1999. Tr. Trans. a t 906.) He became ana tu ra l i z ed c i t i zen f ive years l a t e r . Tr. Trans. a t 910.) egained sole custody of Nicholas as of March 31, 2003. Tr.Trans. a t 914.) Because Nicho la s s mother was not able tof i n a n c i a l l y support him and had moved from Guyana for work,leaving Nicholas to l i v e with var ious fami ly members, Youngmoved Nicholas to the United Sta tes . Tr. Trans. a t 917.)After a r r iv ing in New York in the f a l l of 2007, Nicholas l ivedwith his aunt , a school t eacher , and uncle in South Carol forabout seven months because the Youngs could not a f fo rd ch i ldca refor the hours when Avr i l was working nights and Young was on theTug. Tr. Trans. a t 916; 948; 982; 1116.) Nicho ssubsequent ly moved in with Young and Avri l . Id )

According to Nicholas and Avr i l , Young was a loving,car ing , a t t e n t i ve parent to Nicholas . Tr. Trans. a t 918; 1688.)Even when Nicholas and Young were geographica l ly separa ted ,Young made su re to keep in touch wi th v i s i t s and f requentte lephone ca l l s . Tr. Trans. a t 919.) The two would speak every

50


52/97

day and somet s e v e n t ce a day. (Tr. Trans. a t 919.)would ba cue and ay spor t s t oge the r , lud ing ba 11 andbaske tba l l . (Tr. Trans. a t 919; 1010.) Young he d Nicholas

th h i s homework, e n l i s t i n g the a id of h i s co-workers onoccas ion . (Tr. Trans. a t 239; 919.) Young took Nicho s to theTug to show h i s son where worked. (Tr. Trans. a t 1015.)two t a lked about g i r l s , and Young was teaching Nicholas how tocook. (Tr. Trans. a t 1010-1012.) Young cked Nicholas up fromschool . (Tr. Trans. a t 1010.) He a l so bought Nicho la s sc lo th ing school suppl ies . I d . )

Prior to Young s death , Nicholas had school marks inthe 80s. (Tr. Trans. a t 920.) e r h i s h e r s death ,Nicho la s s grades s l ipped in to the 60s, he had his f i r s t schoolf igh t , he began to ac t withdrawn he s topped aying r t s .(Tr. Trans. a t 920; 921; 1011; 1012.) Nicholas has no one t ha thas ab le to replace t important e Young ayed in h i sl i f e . (Tr. Trans. a t 1012.)

In September 2008, Young sed a s tud io apartmentin Queens as an investment prope (Tr. Trans. a t 955; 956;998; 9 9 9 . h i Avri l d id not approve of the inves tment , she

him money for the down payment. (Tr. Trans. a t 950.)51


53/97

Though the coup le s accountant claimed t ax c re d i t s anddeduct ions for the proper ty , Young never l ived the re . (Tr.Trans. a t 927; 955; 956; 979-982; 999.) Even a f t e r Young'sdeath , t coup le s accountant claimed the mortgage taxdeduct ion on A v r i l s t ax re turn . (Tr. Trans. a t 981.) Afterpurchas ing s tudio r tment , Young lea rned of an ownerres idency requi rement t ha t preven t him from ren t ing t outimmedia te ly . (Tr. Trans. a t 999.)

Up and un t i l t t ime of s a th , Young and Avr i ll ived toge ther a t 58-03 Calloway S t r e e t in Queens. (Tr. Trans.a t 997; 1013.) The Youngs shared the cos t s of r householdequa l ly , sp i t e having separa te banking and c r ed i t cardaccounts . (Tr. Trans. a t 975; 998.) s for l iv ing expenses,Avr i l and Young a l t e r n a t e d months, with each of them coveringhousehold cos t s every other month. (Tr. Trans. a t 975; 998.)The two always f i l ed jo in t t ax re tu rns with a married f i l i ngs t a tus . (Tr. Trans. a t 979.) Young did most of the cooking,making extra food and f reez ing t for those weeks when he was onthe Tug. (Tr. Trans. a t 925.) e a lso did the c leaning anda l l ch i ldca re work for the two weeks a month when he was of f theTug. (Tr. Trans. a t 5; 926; 963.) Nicho la s s expenses ,inc luding c lo th ing and spor t s equipment, were a l l pa id for by

52


54/97

Young. (Tr. Trans. a t 924.) Young a l so payed for householdexpenses such as g s, othing for Nicholas r es tau ran tdinners both on c cards and with cash . (Tr. Trans. a t977.

Pr io r to Young s death , Nicholas was on Moran s hea l thinsurance pol icy . (Tr. Trans. a t 965.) Young s in su rancereceived through Moran included a 401(k) re t i rement account andpension con t r ibu t from the company. (Tr. Trans . a t 965;1435.) Addi t iona l ly , Avr i l was e l to rece ive hea l th carebenef i t s through t Moran pol icy . (Tr. Trans. a t 1487.)Young s adu l t daughter Shei la may have en e l i g i b l e to recethose benef i t s , as well . (Tr. Trans. a t 1487.) FollowingYoung s h, no one in h i s family was e l i g i b l e to rece ivethose benef i t s longer . (Tr. Trans. a t 965; 1462; 1487.)

Young had no expensive onal hab i t s . (Tr. Trans.a t 976; 1438.) Before Young moved to United Sta tes , he sentmoney k to Guyana to help support Nicholas . (Tr. Trans. a t952. amount var ied , but was usua l ly a few hundred do l la r sper (Tr. Trans. a t 952.) so, because of t h e i rdaugh te r s i n t e l l e c t u a l d i sab i l i t i e s , both Youngs f inanc ia l lysuppor ted She i la . (Tr. Trans. a t 911; 959; 989.) sent

53


55/97


56/97

Dr. Moore ca lcu la ted t ha t had Young l ived andcont inued to work un t i l age 70, the economic l o s se s incurred asa r e su l t of his death would be a t l ea s t 692,235. (Tr. Trans .a t 1440.) e used the age of 70 in p a r t because (a) a Morancorpora te rep re sen ta t t e s t i f i e d t ha t deckhands work in to

i r l a t e 6 s (and a t l ea s t one was 70); (b) Young had workedprevious ly l e s s labor i n t ens f i e ld s and thus had anes tab l i shed work h is to ry in other areas ; and (c) of thedemographic sh i of i nd iv idua l s l i v i n g longer and, t husworking longer . (Tr. Trans . a t 1436; 1484.) Dr. Moore soc a l c u l a t the value of the se rv i ce s provided by a typ ica lworking her in a three-person household between the ages of59, Young's when he died and 75. (Tr. Trans . a t 1442.)

f igure t ha t Dr. Moore ca l ted l o s t household se ceswas 80,280. (Exhibi t 261, 6.)

Had Young l i ved beyond age 75, the loss of householdse rv i ce s value would have been higher . (Tr. Trans . a t 1443.)Also, the loss of household se rv ices f igure did not t akeaccount t ac tua l work t ha t Young provided to his household,such as ch i ldca re cooking, shopping and c leaning . (Tr. Trans .a t 1442.) The gures t ha t Dr. Moore ca lcu la ted were fu r the r

55


57/97

scount to sent value bas on the Unit Sta tesDepartment of Treasury bond ra t e s as of November 2011. (Tr.Trans. a t 1439; 1443.) Had he used bond ra t e s app l i c ab le a t

t ime of t r i a l , the economic l o s se s would have been higher .(Tr. Trans. a t 1439; 1443.)

Moran's economic exper t , Thomas Fi t z ra Id , Ph.D. ,( Dr. Fi tzgera ld ) , did not provide any mathematicalca lcu la t ions or inc lude any sc r ip t ion of the methodology heused in ca lcu la t ing h i s economic lo s s reo (Tr. Trans. a t1647; 1654.) Fur ther , he did not ind ica te what [ the] deduct ion[ for personal consumption] would have been did not objec tto Dr. Moore's persona l consumption ca l a t ion . Id . Dr.Fi t zge ra ld ' s ca lcu la t ions assumed Young maintained twohouseholds and a l so ca lcu la ted l o s t support t ha t omi t tedfac t t ha t Young had so le custody of h is minor i l d and assumedt ha t Nicholas had hea h care benef i t s through his s tep -motherand t he re a t t r i bu t ed no pecuniary value to the lo s s ofMoran's hea l th care benef i t s . (Tr. Trans. a t 1638.)Addi t iona l ly , employed a non-exis ten t Treasury bond ra t e whenreducing economic l o s s to sent va lue . (Tr. Trans. a t1666 1667.) Accordingly, Cla imant ' s exper t ca lcu la t ions areadopted as more c red ib l e and r e l i ab l e .

56


58/97

Conclusions o f aw

The fac t s es t ab l i sh both r equ i r ed e lements ofl i a b i l i t y in t h i s case . r s t , imant s es tab l i shed tMoran i s 1 le under both the genera l mar i t law forunseawothiness and for negl igence under the Jones Act. Second,Moran had f a i l e d to prove a lack p r i v i t y or knowledge of thefau l t t ha t k i l l ed Young and should , t he re fo re , not be exonerafrom or l imi in i t s l i a b i l i t y under 46 U.S.C. 30505.

I Under General Maritime aw Unseaworthiness Has eenEstabl ished

A. The Appl icab le StandardUnited Sta t e s Supreme Court has t ransformed the

warranty of seaworth iness in to a s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y o b l i g a t i o n .lmore ck, supra a t 384, 386; see a l so Miles v . Apex

a e Corp. 498 U.S. 19, 25 (1990). A shipowner owes anabsolu te and non-delegable duty to seamen . . prope r ly aboard

s vesse l to provide a seawor thy sh . Although t s noob l i ion to provide an acc ident f ree vesse l , shipownerdoes have a duty to fu rn i sh a v e s and appur tenancesreasonably f i t for t h e i r in tended use . Pel l no v A. H Bull

57


59/97

S. S. Co. 309 F. Supp. 839, 842 (S.D.N.Y. 1969) (c i t a t ionst t ed) . s tandard i s not pe r fec t ion , but reasonab le

f i t nes s . Pel legr ino 309 F. Supp. a t 842. A shipowner i snone the ss l i ab l e an unseaworthy tug i r r e ive of I tand i r re spec t of the ng neg l igence of crew members.Miles 498 U.S. a t 25.

A ves s condi t ion of unseaworth iness might a r i s efrom any number of circumstances . Her gear might be de fec t

appur tenances in d i s i r , her crew unf i t . number ofmen ass igned to form a shipboard t a sk might be i n su f c i en t .Usner v . Luckenbach Overseas Corp. 400 U.S. 494, 517-18 (1971).A fa i lu re of a shipowner to implement adequate t r a i n i n g andpo l i es a lso s a vesse l unseaworthy. Bonefont v . ValdezTanksh , 136 F.3d 137, 1998WL 3029, *5 (5th Cir . Jan. 9, 1998)( A f inding t ha t . . . the crew was inadequate o r ill t r a inedfor t t a sk they were ass igned rep re sen t s a c l a s s i c e ofunseawort ness ) see Harrington v. At lan t i c Sounding Co. Inc.- - - F. Supp. 2d - - - - , 2013 W 94815, *7 (E.D.N.Y., January 7,2013) ( f ind ing Jones Act negl and genera l mari t ime lawunseaworthiness where oyer provided no i n s t ruc t ion ort r a in ing to i t s crew as to how bes t to r rm the r i t ime]t a sk [a t hand] . If see a l so In re Compla t o f Sea Wolf

58


60/97

Marine Towing Transp. Inc. , 2007 W 3340931 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 6,2007) (same). A shipowner wil l thus be l i a b l e i i l ed toprovide an adequate t r a in ing program for the crew andfa i lu re proximately cont r ibuted to t t inc iden t . HerculesCa er s , Inc. v Claimant S ta t e o f Fla . , Dep t o f Tran 7 6 8F.2d 1 8, 1565-66 (11th Cir . 1985); see also Sea Wolf 2007 W3340931, *2.

B. Unseaworthiness for Lack Training and Procedures HasBeen Es tab l i she d

As the s found es t ab l i sh , Moran f a i l toadequately implement procedures or guide l s t ha t wouldprovide i t s crew with the s i t e t r a in ing , s k i l l andknowl to sa perform a swing maneuver, opera tecapstan or handle towl s . Sea ol 2007 W 3340931, *2(holding t ha t a shipowner 's i l u r e to pr de an adequatet r a i n program r s crew c o n s t i t u t e d l i t y undergenera l mari t ime law) . In f ac t , Moran i ssued no po l i c i e s as tol ine -handl ing whatsoever, luding ongoing t r a in ing ors tanda for handl ing a l i ne r s t r a in . Addi t iona l ly , Morandid not prov i a sa fe work environment in which to handle t

forc ing Young to r a t e in a r zone. sefa i lu res proximately cont r ibuted to Young's ath .

59


61/97

Moran a l so i l ed to provide any wri t t en po l i c i e s ors y procedures regarding the swing maneuver as requi red underthe ISM and RCP. Moran adheres to the ISM and the RCP whichre spec t ive ly requi re the company shou e s t a b l i shprocedures , p lans and i n s t ruc t ions , inc luding k l i s t s asappropr ia te , for key shipboard ope ra t ions concerning the sa fe tyof the personnel and es t ab l i sh documented cedures r theuse of winches . (Tr. Trans. a t 400; Exhibi t 399.)capstan i s a type of winch, and l i ne -hand l i s arguably themost impor tant shipboard opera t ion . (Tr. Trans. a t 605.)e subscr to these sa fe ty rements, Moran d id not

have any wri t t en gui l i nes , in s t ruc t ions or procedureswhatsoever for l i ne handl ing during swing maneuvers or capstanopera t ions . (Tr. Trans. a t 1398.) Moran did not have a r i skassessment r a swing maneuver or handl ing l i nes underpressure , or sa y procedures for s t an opera t ions in any ofi t s Port Advisories or sa fe ty meet ings , or requ i re i t s cap ta insand crews to dedica te t ime during the sa fe ty meet ings t o d i scussor i ce the swing maneuver or tan opera t ions for l i nesunder s t r a in . Id.) Addi t iona l ly , Moran's OPPM conta ins noin s t ruc t ions with re to l i ne handl ing or the swing

60


62/97

maneuver. (Tr. Trans. a t 1406 re i s no th ing in the OPPabout the swing maneuver . ) . )

Accidents invo lv ing caps tan and 1 l i ng wereforeseeable . Moran had knowl of a t l e a s t seven i nc iden t sp r i o r to Young s death where i t s loyees were in ju duringcapstan ope ra t ions . (Tr. Trans. a t 1419-1420.) Moran a l so hadknowledge of a 2005 acc ident in which a deckhand from ano thertugboat company, K-Sea, got in a caps tan a rd the tugDavis Sea whi le handl ing l i n e s . Id . ) Despi te s knowledge,and desp i t e sa fe ty requirements , Moran d id not i s sue any PortAdvisory or change in any way i t s po l i c i e s or procedures for howl i n e ing t a sks , i nc lud i the swing maneuver, wereconducted. See Hal l v . E. I . u Pont de Nemours Co. 345 F.Supp. 353 (E.D.N.Y. 1972) ( threshold t e s t of the a p p l i c a b i l i t y

of reasonab le care i s not of the balance of p ro b a b i l i t i e s , bu to f ex i s t ence of some probab i l i ty of s u f f i ent moment to

ac t ion to avoid t on the par t of a reasonab le mind . ) ;(Tr. Trans. a t 1420-1421.) Young s death was thus not there t nav iga t iona l e r ro r s or one t ime l i gence , as Moranpos i t s , but a consequence of Moran s f a i to ensure adequate

res for handl ing a l i ne under s t r a in , which had beendocumented as po ten t i a l ly f a t a l l y dangerous .

61


63/97

3

In addi t ion , se Moran had no guide l s ores t ab l i shed procedures rd ing the swing maneuver, Moranf a i l ed to i n s t ru c t i t s crew as to the importance o fcommunicating the a l l s t before p lac ing load on the l i newith the r igh t rudder . (Tr. Trans. a t 713; 1412.) As t e s t i f i e dto by Claimants ' s , i s e s se n t i a l to pos i t ivecommunications throughout the en t i r e swing maneuver becausedeckhands are wor with l i nes under s t r a the l i n e mustbe secure be maneuver can proceed. (Tr. Trans. a t 642;713; 715.) rwise the gear could s l i p out and subjec tcrewmembers on k to f a t a l hazards . (Tr. Trans. a t 632; 643.)Allen t e s t i f i i n s t ead t ha t based on his a r s o f work andt r a i n i n g a t Moran, t ha t he be l ieved the s t an would always

hold the l oad . (Tr. Trans. a t 116.) e thus did not cons iderthe s o f i n s t i t u t i n g r igh t r before he rece ivedthe a l l s t from Young. 3 To the cont ra ry , in t h i s i n s t ance ,

These fac ts a l so preclude Moran's content ion tha t the sudden emergencydoctr ine was a t ay and re l i eves Allen and Moran of l i a b i l i t y . The suddenemergency doctr ine appl ies only to circumstances where an actor i sconfronted a sudden and unforeseen occurrence not o f the a c t o r s ownmaking [and] does not apply to s i tua t ion[s ] where [] the defendantshould reasonably have an t i c ipa t ed and been to deal with thes i tua t ion with which [he] was confronted . v. Chase 707 F. Supp. 2d318, 325 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) (quota t ions omitted) i s added) . Here, Allen

too far l e f t and being forced to put in rudder to cor rec t theTug and Barge from swinging pas t the intended course was of his own rnaSee id . In addi t ion , Allen should have been aware, and Moran hada duty to t r a i n i t s employees, tha t under these condi t ions , put t ing in

6


64/97

the phys ic s and c a l c u l a t i o n s comported with t he desc r ip t ionsfrom the c t witnesses e s t a b l i s h t ha t , to a reasonab le degreeo f c e r t a i n t y , the t owl ine pu l l ed of f t caps tan as a r e su l t o fAl len pu t t i ng in r igh t rudder to check the l e f t swing before

t t i n g the 1 - s t from Young and before the caps tan wassecure . (Tr. Trans . a t 327.) Moran 's i l u r e to i n s t i t u t ethese p o l i c s and s a f e t y precau t ions , and Al l e n ' s subsequent

i l u r e to ge t the a l l - f a s t before t u rn ing back r i g h t ,t he r e fo re d i r e c t l y con t r ibu ted to Young's dea th .

Moran a l so f a i l e d to ensure a sa f e l oca t ion fo r t h ecaps tan con t ro l r , c rea t ing a danger zone in which Young was

rced to opera te . A vesse l i s unseaworthy if s equipment i spos i t ioned in a way t h a t makes t h a t equipment unsafe . Buckleyv. Cnty. Of Su f fo l k 2013 W 122972, a t *2 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 9,2013) (c i t i ng Crumady v. The Joa im Hendrik sser 358 U.S.4 3 1959} ) i Oxl v. City o f ew York 923 F.2d 22, 25 (2d Cir .

rudder before the capstan was secure could cause the l i ne to pul l of f of thecaps tan . Allen t hus should have been t ra ined to an t i c ipa t e and dea l witht h i s s i tua t ion , fo r ins tance by ensur ing communication with Young before heput in rudder . Moran's asse r t ion tha t t h i s was a sudden emergencyfor which Allan was unprepared only confirms t ha t Moran's t r a i n i n g wasinadequa te and es t ab l i shes unseawor th iness , as Allen was unaware 0 thepo ten t i a l consequences of pu t t ing in r igh t rudder before the a l l - f a s t . SeeSea Wolf 2007 W 3340931, 2 (holding t ha t a 's fa i lure to providean e t ra in ing program for i t s crew cons t i t u t ed l i a b i l i t y undermari t ime law).

63


65/97

1991) ( A i s cons idered to be unseawo when t i si n su f f i c i e n t l y or de fec t ly equipped. ) .

Tug's caps tan c o n t r o l l e r was l oca ted only 36inches the caps tan and pos i t ioned a l oca t ion as toc rea t e a danger zone the cont r , caps tan and H-b i t t where deckhands had to work. (Tr. Trans. a t 328; Tr ia lExhib i t 384, photos 3, 6.) OSH s t a t e d t ha t t h i s pos i t i on ingforced deckhand to opera te [ ] an e l e c t r i c a l l y powecaps tan t h a t had no gua ng to preven t employee beingpu l l ed the nip (Exhibi t 167. )

Moran had a u t h o r i t y and con t ro l over t equipmentTug to c r e a t e a sa fe r working environment , but had not

done so a t the t ime of Young's dea th . (Tr. Trans. a t 1412.) Onr tugs , inc luding those owned by Moran, the d i s t ance between

the capstan c o n t r o l l e r and the caps tan was s i g n i f i c a n t l y morethan 36 inches , ave up to s ix o r seven f e e t away, whichcre a sa f e for deckhands to opera te (Tr. Trans .a t 558 61.) On Tug, in con t ras t , the c o n t ro l l e r l oca t ion

Young to work in c lose prox imi ty to the s tan , evenwhen ty ing o r ng the towline of f the h - b i t t , p lac ing himdangerously nea r the n ip poin t , where he was imate ly

64


66/97

ensnared. 4 (Tr. Trans. a t 328; 336.) Moran's fa i to acei t s equipment appropr i a t e ly thus a l so d i r ec t l y con t r ibu t ed to

s tho

Because of Moran's def ic ienc ies as found above, theTug was unseaworthy and Moran i s s t r i c t l y l i ab l e under

1 mar i t law Young's death and the re su l t i ngs .

II Negligence Under the Jones ct as Been Established

A. e StandardIn 0 r to preva i l on a Jones Act c la im, 46 U.S.C.

30104, a p l a i n t i f f must prove by a preponderance of evidence(1) t ha t the was ac t ing in the course of h is employment(2) t ha t the defendant was s employer (3) t ha t the4Claimant 's exper ts , Glenn R. Hibbard ( Hibbard ) and Richard Bates ( Bates ) ,both t e s t i f i e d as to the c r i t i c a l of having two crewmembers ondeck dur ing a swing maneuver, one to serve as a sa fe ty observer and one towork the l ines . (Tr. Trans. a t 655; 710.) However, because there i s noevidence tha t indus t ry s tandard red the use of two men operat ing dur inga swing maneuver t h i s t e i s discounted . I t i s worth not ing, though,t ha t in these circumstance, the combinat ion of the danger zonetha t Young was forced to opera te and the lack of a second deckhand toopera te the caps tan cont ro l le r and act as a sa observer , did proximatelycon t r ibu te to Young's death. With a second deckhand Young would nothave had to opera te near the where the towl ine carne of f thecaps tan , and the second deckhand could have communicated with Allen as soonas the l i ne pa id out , a l lowing Al len to s top the turn and prevent Young'sdeath. See Tr. Trans. a t 627; 711.)

65


67/97


68/97

The fac t s demonst ra te t ha t Moran was a t f a u l t underthe Jones A c t ' s herweight s t both for i t s senceof any sa fe ty t r a ng, guide 1 l i c i e s o r p s inconnect ion with l i ne -hand l ing and ca r ious ly for the re ingnegl igence of i t s employees.

Moran 's inadequate t ning and sa fe ty p res noton ly cont to the unseaworth ss of the Tug i t s crew,but a l so cons t i tu ted neg l igence under the Jones Act . SeeHarrington v . At lan t i c Sounding Co. Inc . 2013 W 94815, a t *7(E.D.N.Y. January 7, 2013) ( f ind ing Jones Act negl igence whereemployer provided no i n s t r u c t i o n o r t r a i n i n g to i t s crew as tohow bes t to per form the [mari t ] t a s k [a t hand] ) ; seea l so In re Complaint o f Sea Wolf Marine Towing Transp . Inc .2007 W 3340931 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 6, 2007) . A mari t ime employer i sd i r e c t l y negl igent for i t s i l u r e to prov i i n s t r u c t i o no r t r a ng to i t s crew as to how to bes t the [mar i tt a sk [a t hand] . a v. At lan t i c Sounding Co. Inc .2013 W 94815, a t *7 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2013). As found above,Moran was d i r e c t l y re i b l e for but l to providegui l i n e s , p o l i c i e s , procedures , o r ongoi t r a i n i n g as to howto sa ly handle l ines under pressure , inc luding conduct ing a

7


69/97

swing maneuver and a te ly handl ing a t an . See supraSect ion I B. Moran's omissions in t h i s rega were incons i s t en twith indus t ry s tanda and v io la ted the company's duty of careto i t s employees. See Tr. Trans. a t 632; 713 s a n dHibbard es tab l i sh ing o lu t e nece ss i t y of rece the

11 fa s t before coming r and ensur ing sa ty t r a in ing ,I i s and guide l ines the swing maneuver ) . )

Addi t iona l ly , Moran did not modify the ca t ion of thes tan con t ro l l e r , desp i t e ea r sa fe ty concerns , o r re

tug opera tor rece an a l l - f a s t from khandbe in t roduc ing the r r , desp i t e dangers assoc i a t edwith handl ing l i nes under s t n. Moran's negl igence i l i ngto ensure a sa fe work environment or provide adequate t r a in ingof i t s employees on these mat te r s , as es tab l i shed , d i r ec t l ycont r d to Young's death . See supra Sec t ion I B.; see a l soSchoenbaum ( The employer ' s fundamental duty under the Jones Acti s to de i t s seaman with a rea y sa fe place towork. )

Moran i s a l so v ica r ious ly I i Ie for the neg l igen tac t s of i t s oyee, Allen . In a Jones Act context anemployer may v ica r ious ly l i ab l e for i t s loyee ' s negl igence

68


70/97

under the doc t r ine of respondeat s r i o r so long asnegl igence occurred in the course of employment U a t t ime of

acc ident . Beech v Hercules Dril l Co. LLC 691 F.3d566, 571 5th Cir . 2012) ( in te rna l a t ion marks and t a t i ons

) ; see also v Ispat and Inc . 413 F.3d 628,632 7 Cir.2005) re i s no d i s t ha t both Young andAl were ac t ing in t course of t he i r employment and in orderto r the i n t e r e s t s Moran a t t t ime of the swingmaneuver.

Allen both swung too far r igh t , in t roduced ghtrudder re rece iv ing a l l - f a s t U from Young. The phys icsand calcu ions comported with the descr from thewitnesses es t ab l i sh tha t , to a reasonable o f ce r t a in ty ,the towl pul led of f tan as a r e s u l t of Allen pu t t i ngin r igh t rudder to check Ie swing be ing t h ef as t from Young and ens t h a t the caps tan was secure . Tr.Trans. a t 7.) Allen ' s combined e r ro rs thus r ec t l y r esu l t edin the rap pu l l ing of f of towl ine ; the capture of Young inthe capstan; and the subsequent t a l crushing of Young as thetowline pu l l o f f with grea t

69


71/97

Because t he se e r ro rs were the r e s u l t of Allen ' s ownnegl igence, as wel l as the inadequate t r a in ing provided byMoran, Moran i s l i ab l e r the Jones Act both d i r ec t l y i t sinadequate t r a i n i n g and unsa po l i es , and ca r ious ly forAllen ' s re su l t i ng neg l igence .

I I I Limitation o f Liabi l i ty Has Not een Establ ished

A. pp l icab le StandardLimita t ion of l i a b i l i t y i s ava i l ab le only i f

shipowner es tab l i shes t ha t the t causing the lo s s occurredwithout the owner 's pr iv i t y or knowledge. 46 U.S.C. 30505(b).

The erminat ion of whether shipowner may l i m i t l l i t y []involves two-s t ana l i s : (1) de te na t ion of what ac t sof negl igence or unseaworthiness caused the casua l ty and (2)whether the shipowner had knowledge or pr iv i t y of these ac t s .Schoenbaum l5-6i see In re Complaint Messina 574 F.3d119, 126-27 (2d Cir . 2009) . To sus ta in i t s burden, Moran mustshow how the loss occurred , t oge the r with i t s lack of pr iv i t y toor knowledge of the asse cause. I f cannot show how thel o s s occurred , defendant must exhaust a l l poss l t s ,and show t ha t as to each t was without the r e q u i s i t e i v i t y orknowledge. Terracciano v. McAlin Canst. CO. 485 F.2d 304,

70


72/97

307-08 (2d Cir . 1973) . Further , Moran need not have had ac tua lknowledge of the unseaworthiness or neg l igence ; t i s s u f f i c i en ttha t Moran should have known of the breach. See In re MarineSulphur Queen 460 F.2d 89, 101 (2d Cir . 1972) Indeed, Theques t ion with regard to corpora te owners i s not what thecorpora t ion ' s o f f i c e r s and managers a c t u a l l y knew, but what theyob jec t ive ly ought to have known. Complaint o f Pat ton -Tu l l yTransp. Co. 797 F.2d 206, 211 (5th Cir . 1986) (emphasis ino r ig ina l )

The recent j u d i c i a l t rend has been to expand thescope of a c t i v i t i e s t ha t f a l l within the pr iv i t y of the owner,inc luding imput ing to corpora t ions knowledge or pr iv i t y oflower - leve l employees. Matter o f Oil Sp i l l by Amoco Cadiz Of fthe Coast o f France on March 16, 1978, 954 F.2d 1279, 1303 (7thCir . 1992) (c i t a t ions omit ted) ; In re SkipperLinder Indus .Inc . 2002 W 32348827 W.O. Wis. Jan 31, 2002) (quot ing In reOil Spi l l by the Amoco Cadiz 954 F.2d 1279, 1303 (7th Cir .1992)) ( the recent t rend has been to enla rge the scope ofa c t i v i t i e s within the ' p r iv i ty or knowledge' of the shipowner ,inc luding requi r ing shipowners to exerc i se an ' eve r -i nc r ea s ing degree of supervis ion and i n s pec t i on ' . ) . I f anin ju ry occurs as a r e s u l t of a shipowner 's f a i l u r e to use due

71


73/97

and proper care to provide a competent crew, t ha t neg l igence i snecessa ly within the owner 's i v i t y . Messina 574 F.3d a t127. Simi la r ly , the f a i l u r e of a s h ip ' s rna r t o exe rc i se

l igence in se lec t ing , t r a in ing , o r supe s ing crew memberswhose [ac t s or omiss ions] con t r ibu t e to an acc ident i s properground to deny l imi t a t ion of l i a b i l i t y . Potomac Transp. Inc .v Ogden a Inc . 909 F.2d 42, 46 (2d Cir . 1990) .

B. Moran has not Met ts Burden o f Proving Limi ta t ion o fL iab i l i t y

Moran has not met i t s burden of proving t ha tl imi t a t ion o f l i a b i l i t y i s appropr ia te in t h i s ac t ion . To thecont ra ry , Claimant has s f i c i en t l y es tab l i shed Moran's pr iv i t yor knowledge.

Pe t i t i one r has a l l eged t ha t Moran had no not ice ofany condi t de fec t or pr io r acc ident t ha t placed them onnot ice t ha t the caps tan arrangement or the swing maneuverprocedure was inadequa te . (Pet . Mem of Law a t 20.) To thecont ra ry , Moran was aware of a t l ea s t seven acc idents involv inga caps tan , and a 2005 deckhand death on tug Davis Sea whilehandl ing l i nes . (Tr. Trans. a t 1419-1420.) Addi t iona l ly ,Moran's Vice Pres ident , Keyes, t e s t i f i e d t h a t seve ra l t imes

72


74/97

Moran employees were i while working near the caps tan ,tha t i t can be dangerous to work around t he caps t an , and t h a tthe company was aware of impor tance of d i s semina t ing sa yprocedures and guide l ines through i t s OPPM and ongoing sa fe tymeetings to ensure sa ty . (Tr. Trans. a t 1414-15. ) Moranadheres to the ISM and the RCP which re spec t ive ly requ i re t h a t

t he company should es t ab l i sh s , plans andin s t ruc t ions , inc luding k l i s t s as appropr i a t e , for keyshipboard opera t ions conce sa fe ty of the personnel and

es tab l i sh documented procedures use of . . winches .(Tr. Trans. a t 400; Exhibi t 399.) tan i s a type ofwinch, and l ine -handl ing i s a key ope ra t ion . (Tr.Trans . a t 605.)

Despi te t h i s knowledge of pas t acc i nts and desp i t eear awareness of the sa fe ty requi rements sed by the ISM

RCP 5 Moran fa i l ed to i s sue any wri t t en gui l i n e s ,t r a in ings , or in s t ruc t ions whatsoever fo r l i n e nd l ing of anykind. (Tr. Trans. a t 1398.) Fur ther , Moran knew o r should haveknown from i t s experience as an ope ra to r o f tug s e f

OSH also i ssued Moran a formal c i t a t i on as to the locat ion of thecon t ro l l e r . The c i t a t i on s ta ted t ha t [ i ] s suance of t h i s c i t a t i on does notcons t i t u t e a t ha t a v io la t ion of the Act has occurred unless there i sa fa i lure to contes t as provided fo r in the Act, or i f con tes t unless t h i sCita t ion i s aff i rmed by the Review Comr.lission or Court . (Exhibi t 67.)

73


75/97

of swinging the Tug to the r igh t before the a l l fa s t s igna lhad been g and the capstan was secure , and the sa fe tyconcerns ass ted with plac ing the caps tan con t ro l l e r tooc lose to t caps tan . Moran could have implemented suchprocedures , (Tr. Trans. a t 1409-10), but i n s t uted no jobhazard ana lyses , r i s k assessments , or caps tan t r a in ing un t i la f t e r Young's death. (Tr. Trans. a t 1403-04.) Moran d notcommunicate to i t s crew the importance rece iv ing the a l lfa s t before a tug was swung back r igh t or a I was subjec tedto pressure , or at tempt to move the loca t ion of the caps tancont ro l r to ensure a sa fe r work environment un t i l a f t e rYoung's death. See Dover Barge Co. v Tug Crow 642 F. Supp. 2d266, 275 S.D.N.Y. 2009) (an employer may not l imi t hisl i ab i l y under the Act i f the sh ip i s unseaworthy due to theequipment which was de fec t ive or unsa a t the s t a r t of thevoyage. ) ; see l so Marcus v Energy Trans. Corp. 1992 W196784, a t *2 S.D.N.Y. Ju ly 31, 1992) ( A v io la t ion of sa yregu la t ions render the sh ip unseaworthy and if suchunseaworthiness was the proximate cause of the P l a i n t i f f ' si n ju r i e s it would a l so render the e ndant shipowner l i ab le )( in te rna l c tions omit ted)

74


76/97

Moran thus f a i l to adequate ly t r a in [ ] orrv i s [e ]U i t s crew o r c rea te a sa fe environment with respec t

to l i ne handl ing and swing maneuver. Potomac Transp. Inc.v. Ogden Ma Inc. 909 F.2d 42, 46 (2d Cir . 1990) ( thefa i lu re of a s h ip ' s master t o exe rc i se d i l i in se lec t ing ,t r a in ing , or supervis crew members whose [ac t s or omissions]con t r ibu t e t o an acc ident i s proper ground to deny 1 t a t i onl l i t y .U) . This lu re , which was a pr e cause ofYoung's renders 1 t a t i on of l i a b i l i t y i nappropr i a t e .See id see also Hercules a ers 768 F.2d a t 1576-77 ( f indingt ha t iona l igence of t crew became therespons 1 of the owner when t i l ed to t r a i n i t s crewU) ;Complaint o f Cameron Boat Rentals Inc. 683 F Supp. 577, 585(W.O. La. 1988) ( f i ng ope ra t iona l e r ro r s a re imputab tothe owner where they a re na tu ra l consequence of the owner 'sunwri t t en po l i c i e s . U) .

As found above, the f ac t s as es tab l i shed by the recorda l so r e fu te Moran's content ion t ha t Young's death re fromhis negl igence in press ing the wrong but ton on caps tancon t ro l l e r causing t to r a t e in reverse .

IV Damages Have Been Established

75


77/97

Avri l Young, as e s t a t e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , i s e n t i t l e dto recover on beha l f o f a l l bene a r i e s for t wrongful deof he r husband under the Jones Act and r a l mari t law,both fo r the l o s se s su f f e r ed as a r e su l t o f h i s dea th as wel l ash i s su r claims. See Miles 498 U.S. a t 26, 30. Under theJones Act , f i c i a r i e s inc lude the su ving spousechi ; genera l rn t ime law extends t h i s c l a s s to i n c lo the r dependent r e l a t s . See 46 U.S.C. App. 688 ( JonesAct ) , r e f e to FELA, 45 U.S.C. App. 51 FELA wrongfuldea b e n e f i c i a r i e s a re t he s u rv iv in g widow o r husband andch i ld r en o f such emplo I f ; Schoenbaum 8-3 f i c i a r i e s o fan ac t ion fo r wrongful dea th under t h e r a l mar i t ime lawi n c t h e s u rv iv in g spouse, ch i ld r en , pa ren t s and dependentr e l a t i v e s ) . In t h i s case , then, the c i a r i e s a re Young'swidow Avri l Young, h i s minor son Nicholas Young, h i s adudaughter Sh e i l a Young, and Young's granddaughter , Kai t lyn Young,who were a l l f i n a n c i a l l y dependent on Young a t the t o f h i sdea th .

A The i c b le Standard

76


78/97

Under the Jones Act as well as gene mar ime law,Avri l Young can recover for a l l cunia losses which includeloss of support from past and future earnings, the loss ofYoung's household serv ices , Nicholas 's loss of parenta l care andguidance, and dama s for Young's conscious pain and suf r ing.See De Centeno v. Gul f Flee t Crews Inc . 798 F.2d 138, 141 (5thCir. 1986) ( Recoverable items include loss of support from[decedent 's] past and future earnings; loss of [decedent 's]household services; loss of renta l nurture and guidance of hisminor chi ldren unt i l the age of majori ty; and recovery for[decedent 's] predeath pain and suf r ing U .

Courts the Southern s t r i c t of ew York havelooked to s t a t e law r gu nce on damages dete nation inmaritime cases. See Bachir v. Transoceanic Cable Sh Co. 2002W 413918 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2002) (where the court examinesnumerous ew York s ta te cases in determini dama s award); seealso Scala v. Moore McCormack Lines Inc . 985 F.2d 680, 68 (2dCir. 1993) (a longshoreman case ci ted by Bachir where Courtof Appeals s ta ted tha t in assessing a damages award, cour tshave reviewed awards in other cases involving s imi lar in ju r sand ci ted ew York Sta te case law).

77


79/97


80/97

McDougald v. Garber 73 N.Y.2d 246, 255 (1989) (a f ac t f i nde rcannot be requi red to so r t out varying degrees of cogn i t ion anddetermine a t what l eve l a par t i cu l a r depr iva t ion can be fu l lyapprec ia ted . ) . Ins tead , a cla im for conscious pa andsu f fe r ing requ i re s a cla imant to present only proof t ha t the

jured pa r ty experienced some l eve l of cogni t awarenessl lowing the i n ju ry . Sanchez v. y ew York 9 A.D.3d

501, 506 (1s t Dep' t 2012); see also McDougald 73 N.Y.2d a t 255( fac t f inder should only have to cons ider whether a person hadsome l eve l awareness in order for p l a i n t i f f to cover )

( in te rna l quota t ions omit ted) .

Evidence of consc ious pain and su f fe r ing maysubs tan t i a ted by medical records , even the absence o f exper tmedical tes t imony to support the c la im. Dowling v. Dowling 138A.D.2d 345, 345 (2d Dep' t 1988) . Consciousness may a l so bepresumed in c e r t n fac tua l circumstances . Cook v. Ross s landSand and Gravel Co. 626 F.2d 746 (9th r . 1980) . Onceevidence of pre death consc ious pain and su f fe r ing has beenadmit t , the degree of pain becomes only a f ac to r to beconsidered in determining the amount of damages, not whetherdamages should be awarded a t a l l . Will iams v. y ewYork 71 A.D.3d 1135, 1137-38 (2d Dep' t 2010) .

79


81/97

Claimant has s u f f i c i en t l y e s t ab l i conscious inand suf fer ing in t h i s case . All t h ree phys ic ians agreed t ha tYoung r ienced some per iod of conscious pain suf ing;the discrepancy was only as to how long t ha t pain occurred.Though Dr. Thanning t e s t i f tha t Young went in to a neurogeniccoma caused by the pa from h i s crush ing i n ju r i e s , caus ing l o s sof consciousness th in ten seconds, re i s no medical orphysica l suppor t for t h i s theory. (Tr. Trans . a t 1539 52.) othe cont ra ry , Dr. Zhang and Dr. Bol l inger cred le tes t imonyas found above both r e l i e d on concre te physica l evidence andmedical journa ls in concluding tha t , based on pe tech ia lhemorrha s , the l oca t ion of the t r aumat ic i n ju r i e s andabsence of blood below the to rso , Young was conscious for morethan two minutes . (Zhang Dep. Tr. a t 56-59; Tr. Trans . a t 825-26; 829.) I t i s fu r the r c l e a r l y in rab le t ha t [Young], caughtby the winch which was gr inding him to th , su f fe red in t ensepain whi a l so conf ront ing c e r t a i n t y of dea th . St le v.United S ta te s 860 F Supp. 136 (S.D.N.Y. 1994).

Claimant has urged t ha t an award of 2 l l i o n for theper iod of t ime t ha t Young was consc ious ly suf r ing i scons i s t en t with ju ry verd ic t s in s l a r cases . See e .g .

80


82/97

McIntyre v . Uni Sta tes , 447 F. Supp. 2d 54, 118-19 (D. Mass.2006) (awarding $3,000,000 for t h ree minutes of conscious painand suf fer ing from gunshot wound); Hackert v. r s t Aler t , 2006WL 23352330 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2006), a f f d 271 Fed. Appx. 31(2d Cir . 2008) ( cons ider ing the 35 comparat ive negl igence

loca t ion , an appropr ia t e judgment would be $650,000 for theconscious pa in

Young v. Moran Towing Corp. Opinion and Order.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Young v. Moran Towing Corp. Opinion and Order.pdf