At about 3:20 a.m. on July 12, 2021, the foreign flagged bulk carrier JALMA TOPIC was traveling up the Mississippi River when it lost steering just below Algiers Point. As a result, at 3:22 a.m. the JALMA TOPIC contacted Crescent Towing’s office barge that was moored along the Westbank of the river in that area (the “allision”).
Gaiwan Schouest worked as a “port captain” for Crescent Towing. Schouest left work at 1:00 p.m. on July 11, 2021, the day before the allision. At 3:22 a.m. when the allision occurred, Schouest was at home, asleep in bed. After the allision, he was called out to the scene by his employer. Schouest claims he received a call from one of Crescent Towing’s tug captains, Steve Fazekas, at 3:30 a.m. notifying him of the allision. Schouest then got dressed and drove down to the facility, arriving “16 minutes” after he got the 3:30 a.m. phone call.
Mr. Schouest sued Crescent Towing and the owners of the JALMA TOPIC for injuries he he sustained while responding to the allision. His response efforts included running lines to and from Crescent Towing’s office barge for an extended period of time.
The legal team for the JALMA TOPIC filed a motion for summary judgment asking the Court to dismiss Mr. Schouest’s claim against the JALMA TOPIC. They argued that Mr. Schouest was too far removed from the allision to establish JALMA TOPIC’s actions were the proximate cause of his injuries.
The Court refused to grant JALMA TOPIC's motion to dismiss. The Court found the trier of fact could find that JALMA TOPIC’s negligence caused Mr. Schouest’s injuries because he was injured while performing work that the allision necessitated. The Court further noted:
Claimant has established a genuine dispute of material fact as to the stability of the office barge when Claimant arrived at the scene of the Allision. This factual dispute regarding whether the office barge needed to be secured immediately shows why summary judgment is inappropriate. Whether Claimant was presented with an emergency when he arrived at the scene of the Allision impacts the foreseeability analysis and therefore the causation and duty analyses. The foreseeability of Claimant’s injuries depends on whether Claimant was injured while responding to an emergency that Limitation Petitioners caused through their negligence.
Mr. Schouest’s personal injury lawsuit will proceed to trial as result. A copy of the decision can be accessed through the following link:
Please feel free to reach out at (504) 553-1435 or ad@adamdavislawfirm.com if you have any questions or would like to discuss.
Thanks,
Adam Davis Law Firm
Comments