BATH/PORTLAND – A U.S. District Court Judge again ruled in favor in early May of a Bath Iron Works employee who filed a lawsuit in December 2022 for injuries he said he suffered when he assisted in the company’s rescue efforts for passengers on the historic schooner Mary E, after it tipped onto its side on the evening of July 30, 2021 on the Kennebec River.

The lawsuit, filed against the Maine Maritime Museum who later filed two counterclaims, said that the man’s injuries were the result of negligence and a vessel that was not seaworthy.

The lawsuit was filed by James Dotson, a Maine resident, on Dec. 27, 2022, who despite a November 2021 deadline for filing claims set by the U.S. District Court, said that he not aware of the deadline to file a claim and had not been immediately apprised of the extent of his injuries until four months after the incident.

Dotson said that he had only been informed in November 2021 by his physicians that his shoulder injuries “were very severe,” and it was possible he would need surgery. After he was medically cleared of any potential nerve damage, he underwent two surgeries on his shoulder in April 2022 and August 2022. He has since undergone extensive physical therapy and has been out of work since November 2021 due to the severity of his injuries, according to the lawsuit.

Dotson is represented by Joseph M. Orlando, Jr., of Orlando and Associates in Gloucester, Mass.

The suit includes claims that there was an absence of direct notification of the deadline to file claims, a lack of knowledge of legal rights for his client, a lack of legal representation to advise his client, and an “outdated” method of advising potential claimants.

The attorney representing the Maine Maritime Museum, William Welte, of Camden, filed a counterclaim Jan. 11 to the suit stating that Dotson had not provided the court an adequate basis to support his claims.

Welte also argued that although Dotson states in his claim that he was injured on July 30, 2021, “he waited almost a full year, until October of 2022, to do the ‘research’ he knew how to do that led to his contacting an attorney.”

On March 17, U.S. District Judge Nancy Torresen ruled in favor of Dotson and granted his motion for relief from judgment and denied the Maine Maritime Museum’s motion to strike.

The judge said: “I am aware of no other area of the law wherein a potential tortfeasor can race into court to force the people it may have injured to file their claims within months of an incident upon pain of losing all right to do so. The Limitation of Liability Act has been roundly criticized, and while I do not seek to wade into those waters, it is easy to see why many consider it an inequitable throwback to an earlier time. The irony of the Museum fighting to preclude a claim by an individual who came to the rescue of the Mary E is particularly disturbing. In this case, justice would not be served by denying Dotson’s motion for relief from judgment.”

The museum filed a motion for reconsideration requesting that the judge reconsider her March 17 ruling, which was also denied on May 4.

According to the judge, one of the arguments by the museum questions whether it was indeed required to provide mailed notice to Dotson under the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims. “Specifically, the Museum asserts there is substantial ground for difference of opinion on this issue because “[w]hether or not the First Circuit would adopt the Court’s unrestricted view that ‘known potential claimants’ includes all ‘individuals and entities involved in the incident,’ known to Plaintiff ‘with possible’ claims, or is limited to known claimants who appeared to have a potential claim based upon the known facts is unresolved at this point.”

The judge said: “The Museum is missing the point. In my March 17 Order, I concluded that Dotson was entitled to direct notice, not because the Supplemental Rules required it, but rather because I had previously ordered the Museum to provide direct notice to “known potential claimants.” As I explained in the March 17 Order, I required the Museum to provide notice to known potential claimants because the universe of potential claimants was limited and it seemed that the identities of the individuals and entities involved in the incident were known to the Museum.”

Dotson is seeking punitive damages for what he claims were the direct result of negligence, gross negligence, and unseaworthiness of the vessel, along with suffering severe personal injuries, physical and emotional pain, accumulated medical and hospital bills and other out of pocket expenses.

Reach Sarah Shepherd at news@penbaypilot.com