Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Gouin v. Nolan Associates, LLC

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

April 11, 2018

Kathryn Gouin, Plaintiff,
v.
Nolan Associates, LLC d/b/a Boston Harbor Cruises, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM & ORDER

          Nathaniel M. Gorton United States District Judge

         This case arises out of an accident that occurred in Boston Harbor when M/V CODZILLA allegedly hit the wake of a passing vessel causing a passenger, plaintiff Kathryn Gouin (“plaintiff” or “Gouin”), to injure her back. Plaintiff alleges, pursuant to general maritime law, that defendant Nolan Associates, LLC d/b/a Boston Harbor Cruises (“defendant” or “BHC”) was negligent in operating the vessel and failing to warn passengers of the risk of injury.

         Pending before the Court are defendant's motions for partial summary judgment and to strike. For the reasons that follow, those motions will be denied.

         I. Background

         On or about August 3, 2014, Kathryn Gouin boarded M/V CODZILLA (“the vessel”), a 65-foot vessel owned and operated by Nolan Associates, LLC, for a cruise in the Boston Harbor. At some point during the excursion, the vessel hit either a rogue wave or the wake of a passing vessel. Gouin alleges that the turbulence threw her into the air and that when she fell back into her seat she sustained serious injuries, including a compression fracture of her L2 vertebrae.

         In March, 2016, Gouin filed a complaint against Nolan Associates, LLC and Boston Harbor Cruises, Inc. She amended her complaint in May, 2016, and dismissed Boston Harbor Cruises, Inc. upon discovering that it had been dissolved in or about 1990. The amended complaint alleges two counts against Nolan Associates, LLC, now doing business as Boston Harbor Cruises: negligence (Count I) and gross negligence (Count II).

         II. Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment

         A. Legal standard

         The role of summary judgment is “to pierce the pleadings and to assess the proof in order to see whether there is a genuine need for trial.” Mesnick v. Gen. Elec. Co., 950 F.2d 816, 822 (1st Cir. 1991). The burden is on the moving party to show, through the pleadings, discovery and affidavits, “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A fact is material if it “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A genuine issue of material fact exists where the evidence with respect to the fact in dispute “is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id.

         If the moving party has satisfied its burden, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine, triable issue. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986). The Court must view the entire record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and indulge all reasonable inferences in that party's favor. O'Connor v. Steeves, 994 F.2d 905, 907 (1st Cir. 1993). Summary judgment is appropriate if, after viewing the record in the non-moving party's favor, the Court determines that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

         B. Punitive damages

         Boston Harbor Cruises submits that Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471 (2008), created a per se rule that punitive damages in maritime tort cases may not exceed compensatory damages. Accordingly, defendant asks this Court to enter judgment that any jury award of punitive damages in this case may not exceed the amount of compensatory damages. Plaintiff responds that any decision on that issue is premature and that the Exxon opinion did not create a ceiling for punitive damages in all maritime cases.

         The ripeness doctrine ensures that “the harm asserted has matured sufficiently to warrant judicial intervention.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 n. 10 (1975). To demonstrate that a claim is ripe for litigation, a plaintiff must show 1) “the fitness of the issues for judicial decision” and 2) “the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration.” Roman Catholic Bishop of Springfield v. City of Springfield, 724 F.3d 78, 89 (1st Cir. 2013) (citation omitted).

         The first element, fitness, examines whether the issue “involves uncertain and contingent events that may not occur as anticipated or may not occur at all.” Ernst & Young v. Depositors Econ. Prot. Corp., 45 F.3d 530, 535 (1st Cir. 1995). The second prong, hardship, concerns the harm to the parties that would ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.