October 11, 2006 : Brian Calistri’s Maritime Trial Court Win Upheld by Third Circuit; U.S. Supreme Court Denies Further Appeal
Brian L. Calistri, a partner in the Firm's Philadelphia office, recently prevailed in a maritime lawsuit brought by a dockworker thrown overboard and seriously injured during container discharge at the Camden, New Jersey pier. On October 2, 2006, the United States Supreme Court refused to review of the lower court's dismissal of his claims against the terminal operator.
In Goldsmith v. Swan Reefer, the plaintiff had argued that Mr. Calistri's client, the terminal operator at port premises leased from the South Jersey Port Corporation, failed to intervene and prevent the allegedly dangerous practice of "simultaneous discharge" - the use of two shipboard cranes to unload containers from the vessel's deck at the same time. The plaintiff alleged that the use of two cranes simultaneously caused dangerous vessel listing and directly contributed to the unexpected swinging of a container that swept the plaintiff overboard.
At the trial level, after dozens of depositions were taken concerning the details of the accident and stevedoring practices throughout the Philadelphia and Camden ports, Mr. Calistri filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that his terminal operator client had entrusted the task of vessel discharge to the plaintiff's employer, Delaware River Stevedores, and that the method and manner of unloading the vessels was entirely controlled by them. The plaintiff, in opposition, contended that Calistri's client knew or should have known of the dangerous use of two cranes and should have stopped the stevedore, with whom it had a services contract, from engaging in this unsafe practice.
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey ruled that the terminal operator had no duty to the plaintiff with respect to the accident in question and granted the motion for summary judgment. The court reasoned that a terminal operator, having contracted vessel discharge to a stevedore, could legitimately rely on that contractor to carry out its obligations under the contract in a safe manner. The plaintiff appealed the matter to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which, after oral argument, affirmed the lower court in an extensive opinion.
The plaintiff subsequently filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. The plaintiff contended that there was no guiding precedent as to the duty of care a terminal operator owed to maritime workers and that the high court should establish the obligations of the terminal operator in these circumstances much as it had done with respect to shipowners in the prior case of Scindia Steam Navigation. The Supreme Court let the Third Circuit's affirmance stand and denied plaintiff's petition for certiorari. A copy of Mr. Calistri's successful opposition to a grant of certiorari is attached in PDF format.
File Under: Results, General Liability, Brian L. Calistri