Source: http://wa.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180416_0002579.WWA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 14:17:42+00:00

Document:
FindACase | Fish, LLC v. Harbor Marine Maintenance & Supply, Inc.
Fish, LLC v. Harbor Marine Maintenance & Supply, Inc.
HARBOR MARINE MAINTENANCE & SUPPLY, INC., Defendant.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. No. 39) and Defendant's motion to withdraw admissions (Dkt. No. 46). Having thoroughly considered the parties' briefing and the relevant record, the Court finds oral argument unnecessary and hereby GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiffs' motion (Dkt. No. 39) and DENIES Defendant's motion (Dkt. No. 46) for the reasons explained herein.
(1986). Once a motion for summary judgment is properly made and supported, the opposing party “must come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). Material facts are those that may affect the outcome of the case, and a dispute about a material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the non-moving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248-49. Ultimately, summary judgment is appropriate only against a party who “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986).
Plaintiffs move for summary judgment on their claim that Defendant breached the bailment agreement. (See generally Dkt. No. 39.) A bailment is created when property is delivered to and accepted by a recipient with the implied promise that the property will be returned once the purpose of the bailment has been fulfilled. 19 Williston on Contracts § 53:2 (4th ed.) (May 2017 update). “It has long been established that the law of bailment is applicable to suits for damages to or loss of a vessel that has been left with another for purposes of repair.” Goudy & Stevens, Inc. v. Cable Marine, Inc., 924 F.2d 16, 18 (1st Cir. 1991) (citing Buntin v. Fletchas, 257 F.2d 512, 513 (5th Cir. 1958)). Further, if a bailor demonstrates that a bailee had exclusive possession of property and then returned the property damaged, a presumption of negligence attaches. Natl. Liab. & Fire Ins. Co. v. R & R Marine, Inc., 756 F.3d 825, 832 (5th Cir. 2014). To overcome this presumption, the bailee must make an affirmative showing that it either exercised reasonable care or that its negligence was not the proximate cause of the damage. Id.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 53
 v. 
 v. 
 v.