PRELI v. SOUTH FERRY INC (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Christopher Modelewski, J.), dated July 17, 2023.  The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants to recover damages for personal injuries he allegedly sustained while he was a passenger on their ferry.  The plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that while onboard the ferry with his motorcycle, the ferry struck a water pylon and/or a dock due to the defendants’ negligence, which caused his motorcycle to tip over and resulted in his injuries.

The defendants cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, contending that the plaintiff's own negligent acts were the sole proximate cause of his alleged injuries and that the defendants did not owe a duty to warn the plaintiff of open and obvious dangers on a ferry.  In an order dated July 17, 2023, the Supreme Court, among other things, granted the defendants’ cross-motion.  The plaintiff appeals.

“[T]he owner of a ship in navigable waters owes to all who are on board for purposes not inimical to his [or her] legitimate interests the duty of exercising reasonable care under the circumstances of each case” (Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625, 632, 79 S.Ct. 406, 3 L.Ed.2d 550).  Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that, under the circumstances, they operated their ferry in a reasonably safe manner, they had no duty to warn of open and obvious dangers, and that any violation of 46 CFR 78.40–1(a), 78.40–5(a), 185.340(a), and 185.340(b) was not a proximate cause of the accident (see In re Oldham, 2022 WL 2804685, 2022 U.S. Dist LEXIS 130815 [S.D. Fla., May 17, 2022, No. 21–60563–CIV];  The Complaint of Boston Boat III, LLC v. Galioto, 2015 WL 5444162, 2015 U.S. Dist LEXIS 123486 [S.D. Fla., Sept. 16, 2015, No. 13–62116–CIV];  Lockhart v. Martin, 159 Cal. App. 2d 760, 763, 324 P.2d 340, 342;  see generally Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572;  Bennett v. Town of Brookhaven, 233 A.D.2d 356, 650 N.Y.S.2d 752).  In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

LASALLE, P.J., FORD, VOUTSINAS and GOLIA, JJ., concur.