Crown Bay Marina Case Summary

Kelly Josepha Mala, Appellant v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. No. 10-4710. January 7,2013.

Facts Kelly Mala had been at the Crown Bay Marina in the Virgin Islands getting gas when he went inside and asked an attendant to look after his boat. When Mala returned the gasoline was overflowing and shortly after he pulled away, his boat exploded. Mala sued Crown Bay Marina, went to trial, and lost. He now states that because he is a pro se litigant he should have received extra assistance from the court. Mala also argues that the court wrongfully denied his request for a jury trial and incorrectly ruled on post trial motions. The court rejected his contentions and will affirm.

Issue Is Crown Bay Marina

responsible for negligently training its attendant and negligently maintaining its gas pump? Does a pro se litigant have a right to extra assistance from the court such as a manual or legal advice? Are the parties of this case diverse and if so does that grant the case a jury trial because of diversity jurisdiction? Is the court wrong in not granting Mala a new trial?

Decision The decision from the advisory jury in the trial reached a verdict of $460,000 for Mala in pain and suffering and compensatory damages, but the District Court rejected that verdict and Mala lost the trial. Pro se litigants do not have the right to legal advice. The parties of this case were not diverse, meaning there was no right to a jury trial. The court did not make a mistake in not allowing a new trial.

Reason The District Court rejected the verdict that would have made Crown Bay give Mala $460,000 because Mala was 25% at fault.

Regarding pro se litigants and whether they have a right to advice, McKaskle v. Wiggins represents the Supreme Courts decision that there are no laws requiring courts to provide legal advice to pro se parties. It also does not mention in the Constitution that judges need to do anything extra for them. Despite no requirements for the Court to give pro se litigants assistance, they still would deny his claim because he did not prove any evidence for what he would have done differently with the advice, and he could have easily gotten his hands on a manual from another court or the internet. The court decided it only had admiralty jurisdiction not diversity because both parties of the case were citizens of the Virgin Islands. The seventh amendment gives the right to a trial jury in suits of common law, but admiralty cases are not common law, meaning Mala did not have the right to a jury. Waring V. Clarke is a case that was responsible for preserving jury trials. The courts rejected Mala’s claim regarding a new trial and denied his motions because they felt there was no real reason to accept his

argument.