Admiralty – Tort/Negligence – Personal Injury – Anchor Line – Transverse Myelitis — Foreseeability

Harrison v. Newman (Lawyers Weekly No. 002-168-17, 9 pp.) (Richard Mark Gergel, J.) 2:16-cv-02919; D.S.C.

Holding: Even if the windlass on defendant’s boat was an open and obvious danger, plaintiff does not allege a failure to warn; instead, plaintiff argues that defendant was negligent in activating the windlass while plaintiff was holding the anchor line or was in close proximity to the windlass. Plaintiff has raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether it was obvious that the anchor chain would respond as it did when plaintiff freed the anchor.

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted as to plaintiff’s punitive damages claim; otherwise, the motion is denied.

Plaintiff has no evidence that defendant had materially more knowledge than plaintiff did about how abruptly the line would bite when the anchor was freed. Nor does plaintiff have evidence that a reasonable person in defendant’s position would have had knowledge about how abruptly the line would bite in those circumstances. Moreover, plaintiff admits defendant warned him to be careful.

Again, the crux of this case is plaintiff’s assertion that (regardless of warnings) it was unreasonable for defendant to activate the windlass while someone was standing on the bow to manipulate the anchor line. That is sufficient to create a triable issue with regard to negligence, but it is insufficient to show the conscious disregard of a known risk or of a risk that a reasonable person in defendant’s position would have known that is necessary for punitive damages.

Plaintiff alleges that he was given a TDAP vaccination as part of the standard treatment for his injury and that an adverse reaction to that vaccination caused him to develop transverse myelitis, a neurological disorder. Defendant argues that (1) plaintiff cannot prove the TDAP vaccination caused his transverse myelitis and (2) transverse myelitis from a TDAP vaccination is not a reasonably foreseeable result of defendant’s conduct.

However, plaintiff produces treating physicians and medical experts who opine that his injury was specifically caused by the standard treatment for his injury. These opinions create a triable issue of material fact.

The court perceives no genuine dispute that a tetanus shot is part of the standard emergency care for a severed fingertip. If defendant is liable for plaintiff’s severed fingertip, then defendant is liable for any harms caused by medical treatment reasonably required for plaintiff’s severed fingertip.

Motion granted in part and denied in part.