Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Labor

Contested Facts Regarding the Seaworthiness of Employer's
Fish-Feeding Operation Precludes Summary Judgment

Walt McCarter
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Karlsson v. Kona Blue Water Farms, LLC, No. 07-00242-BMK, 2008 WL 4753340 (D. Haw. Oct. 24, 2008), the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii denied a plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of the seaworthiness of the defendant-employer's fish feeding operation, because there were material facts in dispute regarding the customary practice of the fish feeding industry and the reasonableness of the employer's methods.

Background

Plaintiff was an assistant offshore manager for the defendant Kona Blue Water Farms (Kona), and his duties included loading 40-55 pound bags of fish feed onto the defendant's boats. Id. at *1. Plaintiff claimed that his back was injured while moving the bags of feed, and brought this action against the defendant under the Jones Act and general maritime law. Id. He moved for summary judgment, and the issues before the court were whether he qualified as a seaman and whether Kona breached the warranty of seaworthiness. Id.

Arguments

Plaintiff argued that the injuries that he and other employees suffered were proof that Kona breached the warranty of seaworthiness by not supplying adequate equipment for the job, and further argued that Kona's president and its CEO essentially admitted in their depositions that its operation was dangerous and unseaworthy. Id.

Kona argued that the methods it used were customary in the industry and not unreasonable. Id. at *2.

Analysis and Holdings

Kona did not contest the plaintiff's seaman status; therefore, plaintiff's summary judgment motion as to that issue was granted. Id. at *1. As to the other issue, the court explained that unseaworthiness could result from "an unsafe method of work" or a "failure to provide adequate equipment for the performance of an assigned task." Id. at *2. The court also noted that a charge of unseaworthiness could be defended by presenting evidence that the method of work at issue was customary in the industry and not otherwise unreasonable. Id. Kona's expert witnesses testified that manual transportation of fish feed bags was customary practice in the start up phase of aquaculture operations and that the methods used were not unreasonable, which raised an issue of material fact as to those issues. Id. at *2-3. The court found that the deposition testimony of Kona's officers could not be viewed as legally determinative on the question of seaworthiness, but were merely pieces of evidence to be considered by a trier of fact. Id. at *3. The court therefore granted the plaintiff's summary judgment motion as to his seaman status, but denied the motion as to the issue of seaworthiness. Id. at *4.

The case was decided on October 24, 2008.