Griffith
Griffith v. Martech International, Inc.
Opinion
Opinion
Keller, J.
ORDER RE DEFENDANTS CROFTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND RULE 11 SANCTIONS
For the reasons set forth below, Defendants CROFTS’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, and CROFTS’ motion for Rule 11 sanctions is DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Gary Griffith is a professional diver who was employed by defendant Mar-tech International (Martech) in May 1987. At that time, Plaintiff was involved in a particular Martech diving operation aboard the vessel Misty Eserman during which Plaintiff contracted the “bends.” The Misty Eserman had been “time-chartered” by Martech from Defendants Don O. Croft and Thomas G. Croft (Crofts), the owners of the vessel. In addition to the vessel under the time-charter, the Crofts also provided a three-person crew to navigate and operate the vessel. All diving equipment used in the diving operation was the property of Martech and was loaded and stored by Martech employees.
Plaintiff has brought suit against both Martech and the Crofts for his injuries, alleging negligence and unseaworthiness claims under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.App. § 688, and general maritime law. As the foundation for these claims, Plaintiff asserts that certain actions by…