## Facts

- Randy Trahan was riding as a passenger in his 17-foot Stratos outboard boat on English Bayou in Louisiana.
- Trahan’s brother, Allen Joseph Trahan, operated the boat.
- After the boat passed under the Highway 171 bridge, the steering cable broke, the boat made a sudden sharp turn to the right, and Randy Trahan was thrown from the boat.
- Randy Trahan suffered injuries to his right arm, shoulder, and neck.
- Trahan sued Teleflex, Inc. and Teleflex Morse, Inc. (Teleflex), identified as the manufacturer(s) of the steering cable, asserting maritime products liability and general maritime law claims.
- Because maritime tort claims depended on admiralty jurisdiction, the parties disputed whether the accident occurred on “navigable waters” and whether the incident had the required maritime connection.
- Teleflex filed an exception of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, asserting that English Bayou was not navigable at the accident location (and also raised prescription arguments that depended on defeating the maritime basis of the suit).
- Trahan moved for partial summary judgment seeking a ruling that English Bayou was navigable at the accident location.
- The record included evidence suggesting commerce did not frequently occur on that section of the bayou, but that the bayou had been used for commerce in the past and that a person could travel by boat from the accident location through connected waters to the Gulf of Mexico.
- After a hearing, the trial court found that English Bayou near the bridge and accident location was navigable, denied Teleflex’s jurisdictional exception, and granted Trahan partial summary judgment on navigability.
- Teleflex appealed, arguing the bayou was not navigable at the relevant location and that the trial court improperly granted summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by considering oral (live) testimony at the summary-judgment hearing when granting partial summary judgment on the navigability of English Bayou.
2. Whether the partial summary judgment and related ruling rejecting Teleflex’s subject-matter-jurisdiction challenge could stand given the summary-judgment evidentiary rules.
3. Whether the case should be returned to the trial court for further proceedings on admiralty jurisdiction based only on proper summary-judgment materials.

## Decision

- The Louisiana Third Circuit held that the trial court improperly received and relied on oral testimony in ruling on the motion for partial summary judgment.
- Because summary judgment must be decided on the written materials authorized by Louisiana procedure, the partial summary judgment finding English Bayou navigable was reversed.
- The appellate court also reversed the trial court’s related jurisdictional ruling to the extent it turned on the procedurally defective summary-judgment determination.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the limits on summary-judgment evidence; the appellate court did not finally decide the merits of navigability.

## Legal Principles

- Admiralty tort jurisdiction requires satisfaction of both (1) the locality requirement (the tort occurred on navigable waters, or a land injury was caused by a vessel on navigable waters) and (2) a connection to traditional maritime activity.
- Whether a waterway is “navigable” for admiralty purposes generally turns on its capability, in its ordinary condition, to serve as a highway for commercial activity, including through practical use and connection to other waters.
- In Louisiana, summary judgment must be decided on the specific categories of written record materials authorized by the procedural rules (such as pleadings, affidavits, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions).
- A trial court should not receive or consider live oral testimony at a summary-judgment hearing; doing so is procedural error requiring reversal when the ruling depends on that testimony.

## Conclusion

The court of appeal reversed the trial court’s partial summary judgment declaring English Bayou navigable (and the related rejection of Teleflex’s jurisdiction challenge) because the trial court relied on oral testimony at the summary-judgment hearing, and it remanded for renewed consideration of admiralty jurisdiction under proper summary-judgment procedures.


Trahan v. Teleflex, Inc., 922 So. 2d 718 (2006)