SMB&P’s Government Entities group recently obtained summary judgment in favor of a police officer who was required to use force in an attempt to detain an individual experiencing a mental health emergency. Police were contacted by members of the individual’s family after he exhibited signs of mental instability over several days. Officers attempted to make contact with the individual and themselves witnessed mentally unstable behavior. Later, officers conducted a traffic stop of a vehicle the individual was riding in as a passenger for the purpose of taking him to the hospital for mental health treatment. Another police officer, who was the department’s K-9 handler, was separately dispatched to the scene of the traffic stop. During stop, the individual exited the vehicle and began walking away from the officers. At the same time, the driver of the vehicle informed the officers that the individual had a gun and an officer asked the driver if he had been stabbed. As the individual continued walking away from the officers, they ordered him to stop, but he did not comply. The K-9 handler then released the K-9 in an effort to get the individual to stop. This was ineffective, and the individual continued to walk away toward a busy intersection and nearby businesses. The K-9 officer then moved towards the individual and took him to the ground. The individual then drew a revolver from his waistband and some of the officers fired their duty weapons.  The individual’s Estate filed suit making several claims against the officers and the police department, including claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the K-9 handler violated the individual’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure and detention by releasing the police dog and taking the individual to the ground. SMB&P Partner Katie Barbiere represented the K-9 handler and filed a motion for summary judgment on his behalf. In ruling on the motion, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio found that the officer knew the other officers were trying to detain the individual to take him to a hospital for mental health treatment. Further, based on what occurred as the individual exited the vehicle, the court found the officer had a reasonable basis for believing the individual had a gun on his person and may have just stabbed the driver. Knowing this, and seeing the individual continue to walk away from the scene toward a busy intersection and nearby businesses, the court found that a reasonable officer would see the individual as a growing and imminent threat to the officers and other people in the area. As a result, the court ruled that in the totality of these circumstances, the officer’s actions did not constitute an excessive use of force in violation of the Fourth Amendment as a matter of law and that he was entitled to qualified immunity. The court dismissed the Estate’s claims and entered judgment in favor of the officer. The court’s decision can be viewed here.

In October 2024, SMB&P maritime attorneys, Megan A. Sullivan and Jim Barbiere, organized and presented a series of “Maritime 101” learning sessions to 40+ managers, employees, in-house counsel, and claims personnel for a long-time client of the firm, offering an introduction to maritime law, how to protect the client from liability, as well as compliance with Coast Guard requirements. Topics included Jones Act seaman status, maritime causes of action, Coast Guard’s incident reporting requirements, internal incident investigations, and the newly implemented requirements under the Safer Seas Act. SMB&P is happy to present learning sessions on any number of maritime topics to your staff and/or at your next Captain’s meeting. Please reach out to either Megan A. Sullivan at mahrens@smbplaw.com or Jim Barbiere at jbarbiere@smbplaw.com to schedule.

On January 13, 2018, a multi-barge breakaway occurred from the Jacks Run fleet in Pittsburgh, PA resulting in millions of dollars of loss and damage to the barges and a complex maze of litigation, which remains pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. In representing of one of the barge owners, SMB&P’s Maritime Law group pursued a contractual indemnity claim for reimbursement of the barge owner’s first-party losses, damages, and expenses arising from the breakaway. The indemnitor repeatedly denied the claim, prompting the filing of a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. On July 20, 2021, Judge Horan granted the Motion, holding the indemnity provision unambiguously requires the indemnitor to provide indemnity for the barge owner’s first and third-party losses, damages, expenses, and liability arising from the breakaway, regardless of fault or a determination of what or who caused the breakaway.

On February 13, 2019, the tow of the M/V Miss Dixie suddenly and without warning veered into the path of and collided with the tow of the M/V D. & R. Boney, causing severe damage to the lead barge in the M/V D. & R. Boney’s tow.  On behalf of the M/V D. & R. Boney’s owner and operator, SMB&P’s Maritime Law team filed an Intervening Complaint against the operator of the M/V Miss Dixie in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.  After taking the deposition of the Captain of the M/V Miss Dixie, SMB&P filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on both liability and damages.  Judge Milazzo granted the Motion, awarding SMB&P’s clients their full measure of damages, plus pre- and post-judgment interest.