More than six years after a devastating fire at the Jackson County Park and Marina claimed eight lives, a federal judge has ruled that major questions surrounding the tragedy, including allegations involving the Tennessee Valley Authority, Jackson County and the City of Scottsboro, must be decided at trial.
U.S. District Judge Corey L. Maze issued a 62-page memorandum opinion on August 13 denying summary judgment to TVA, Jackson County and Scottsboro on key claims arising from the January 27, 2020 Dock B fire.
The court granted summary judgment to the Scottsboro Electric Power Board, commonly known as SEPB, and ordered it removed as a defendant.
The ruling does not mean the court has found TVA, Jackson County or Scottsboro liable for the deaths, injuries or property damage.
Rather, Maze determined there are disputed facts and evidence that must be resolved at trial instead of disposing of the claims through summary judgment.
The consolidated lawsuits were filed by boat owners, overnight guests and representatives of those who died following the fire. Plaintiffs allege TVA failed to prevent or mitigate the tragedy.
TVA, in turn, brought third-party claims against Jackson County, Scottsboro and SEPB.
Shortly after midnight January 27, 2020, a fire broke out aboard the Dixie Delight, a 43-foot houseboat owned by Tim Parker, previously owned by Jackson County, and docked at Dock B.
The fire spread rapidly from the boat to neighboring vessels and the wooden dock.
With the Dixie Delight located near the shore end of Dock B, people farther down the burning dock were unable to simply escape toward land.
Sixteen people attempted to flee aboard two boats at the end of the dock, but neither boat’s engine would start.
According to the court’s account, those aboard attempted to paddle away using folding chairs and wash brushes.
As burning vessels broke loose, one escaped boat was struck, forcing four people into the water.
Another burning vessel struck the second escaped boat, forcing five more occupants into the water.
Seven people remaining aboard that vessel, five children, their mother and another woman, died.
Another person drowned after entering the water.
Eight people died in all, and another suffered serious injuries.
The tragedy has resulted in years of litigation over not only what caused the fire, but whether additional safety precautions could have prevented or reduced the loss of life.
One of the most significant disputes headed to trial concerns an oversized 55-amp circuit breaker.
Plaintiffs allege then-Jackson County Park and Marina manager Carl Barnes installed a 55-amp breaker in the breaker box servicing the slip where the Dixie Delight was berthed.
Their expert, John Frost, maintains the boat was designed for a maximum of 30 amps and that the oversized breaker contributed to the fire.
The breaker was allegedly installed May 21, 2019, more than eight months before the tragedy.
Among other things, the County argues the Dixie Delight was not connected to that breaker on the night of the fire and relies on its own experts who dispute that an oversized breaker could have caused the blaze.
Maze emphasized that those conflicting expert opinions cannot simply be resolved by the court at the summary-judgment stage.
“The court doesn’t doubt the veracity of Davis and Gee’s work or their opinions,” Maze wrote regarding two Jackson County experts.
“But their opinions are exactly that, opinions.”
Their conclusions directly conflict with Frost’s opinion, the judge noted, meaning resolving the issue now would require the court to determine which experts are more credible, something it cannot do at summary judgment.
There is another significant factual dispute: Which breaker actually supplied electricity to the Dixie Delight?
Evidence presented in the case conflicts over whether the boat was connected to the 55-amp breaker.
The court noted that the labels inside the circuit breaker panel were incorrectly written and cited testimony and affidavits supporting the plaintiffs’ contention that the breaker serviced the Dixie Delight.
Maze concluded there is a genuine dispute over the issue that must be decided at trial.
Jackson County also argued it did not have actual or constructive notice of the alleged electrical hazard.
Maze rejected that argument for purposes of summary judgment.
Assuming the plaintiffs’ version of events is ultimately proven, the judge noted, Barnes himself created the dangerous condition by installing the oversized breaker.
The court also found evidence from which a factfinder could conclude Jackson County had notice regardless.
The breaker had allegedly remained in place for more than eight months and was clearly labeled.
“Try as it might, Jackson County cannot separate its knowledge from that of its Park and Marina manager,” Maze wrote.
The judge ultimately concluded that when the evidence is viewed in the plaintiffs’ favor as required at this stage, a reasonable factfinder could determine Jackson County knew of the oversized breaker and that the breaker caused the fire.
The case goes beyond what initially caused the fire.
A second major issue is whether inadequate fire and emergency safety measures made the disaster worse once the blaze began.
Among the measures questioned in the litigation are an emergency response plan, a rescue boat or safety skiff, additional fire suppression systems, accessible Coast Guard-approved flotation devices and other fire-safety precautions.
Jackson County argued Dock B complied with applicable industry safety practices and that the absence of additional measures did not cause the plaintiffs’ injuries.
The judge found conflicting evidence that must be resolved at trial.
Plaintiffs and their expert Michael Pratt contend Dock B lacked safety measures that could potentially have prevented or reduced injuries, particularly an emergency response plan, rescue boat or safety skiff and additional fire suppression systems.
Jackson County also argued that the absence of certain safety measures was “open and obvious.”
The court rejected that argument because the plaintiffs’ allegations concern negligent maintenance and operation of Dock B rather than simply a failure to warn people of a dangerous condition.
Questions concerning punitive damages also remain.
Maze declined at this stage to determine whether Jackson County’s conduct meets the applicable standard for wantonness under maritime law, leaving the matter for consideration following the evidence at trial.
TVA also failed in its effort to have the plaintiffs’ claims dismissed before trial.
Plaintiffs have advanced two central theories against TVA: “fire-causation” and “fire-mitigation.”
The causation theory alleges TVA negligently failed to inspect, maintain and remedy Dock B’s electrical system.
The mitigation theory alleges TVA failed to require or implement safety measures that could have prevented or reduced the deaths, injuries and property losses.
The significance of TVA’s relationship with the marina is central to the dispute.
Although Jackson County owned, operated and maintained Dock B, the property is located on the Guntersville Reservoir and TVA retained substantial property and regulatory rights.
TVA periodically inspected the marina, administered its Clean Marina Initiative and Campground Compliance Initiative, and had previously addressed electrical-safety issues at recreational facilities.
The court determined sufficient evidence exists for a factfinder to consider whether TVA exercised enough control over the Park and Marina to owe the plaintiffs a duty of reasonable care.
As a result, TVA’s motion for summary judgment was denied, leaving the plaintiffs’ surviving claims against TVA for trial.
The published federal opinion likewise states that the fire-causation and fire-mitigation claims against TVA will proceed.
The City of Scottsboro sought to remove itself from the case, arguing it did not owe the plaintiffs a duty and that its actions did not cause their injuries.
The court denied the city’s motion in full.
Unlike Jackson County and TVA, Scottsboro did not operate or control the marina.
Its involvement centered largely around inspections conducted by then-Scottsboro Fire Marshal Charles Bryant.
Records establish inspections in 2012 and 2016, although Bryant testified there was a “good chance” the marina was inspected annually.
Those inspections included looking at fire access, fire extinguishers, extension cords and breaker boxes.
That voluntary undertaking proved important.
The court found evidence from which a factfinder could determine Scottsboro voluntarily assumed a duty to reasonably perform those inspections.
The ruling points specifically to the 55-amp breaker.
Although Bryant was not an electrician, the court noted that the oversized breaker was allegedly visible while Scottsboro had signed off on the condition of Dock B’s breaker panels.
The court also cited Barnes’ testimony that Jackson County corrected deficiencies identified during Scottsboro’s inspections and that he relied on those inspections in determining whether Dock B’s electrical system was safe.
A reasonable factfinder, Maze concluded, could therefore find that Scottsboro voluntarily undertook a duty, that Jackson County relied upon those inspections and that Scottsboro breached that duty.
The court also left for trial questions involving wantonness and possible punitive damages under maritime law.
TVA’s third-party claims against Scottsboro for contribution and direct liability will consequently proceed to trial.
The outcome was different for the Scottsboro Electric Power Board.
Maze granted SEPB’s motion for summary judgment in full.
A major issue involved determining where SEPB’s responsibility for the marina’s electrical system ended under its 2016 Electric Service Agreement with Jackson County.
The parties disputed the meaning of the agreement’s “point of delivery.”
The court ultimately relied heavily on how Jackson County and SEPB themselves had interpreted and operated under the agreement. Both treated SEPB’s responsibility as ending at the connection near the top of the utility pole.
The court found no record evidence establishing that SEPB’s responsibility extended farther down the system to the Dock B breaker box where the 55-amp breaker was allegedly installed.
As a result, Maze concluded SEPB had no duty regarding that portion of Dock B’s electrical system.
The court also rejected an allegation that a lock placed on a shore-power disconnect prevented people from shutting off electricity during the fire.
According to the opinion, there was no evidence SEPB installed that lock before the fire. SEPB testimony indicated the lock was installed after the fire to prevent Dock B from being re-energized.
Maze further noted there was no evidence anyone attempted to access that box during the fire, meaning the lock could not be shown to have caused or worsened the injuries even if it had been present beforehand.
The court ordered SEPB removed as a defendant.
The August 13 ruling clears the way for the central disputes in one of Jackson County’s most consequential civil cases to be decided at trial.
Among the issues remaining are whether the oversized breaker was connected to the Dixie Delight and caused the fire; whether Jackson County and TVA failed to exercise reasonable care; whether inadequate fire-safety and emergency measures contributed to the severity of the tragedy; whether Scottsboro bears responsibility because of its voluntary fire inspections; how liability, if any, should be divided; and whether conduct proven at trial warrants punitive damages.
TVA’s indemnity claim against Jackson County also remains unresolved. Maze called that issue premature because liability has not yet been determined or allocated and said the County may raise its indemnity arguments again under certain circumstances later in the litigation.
The cases will be tried before Maze rather than a jury, meaning the federal judge will ultimately serve as the factfinder.
The most important distinction in the August 13 ruling is that the court has not determined who caused the fire or who is legally responsible for the eight deaths.
Instead, after years of discovery, depositions, competing expert opinions and legal arguments, the court determined there are enough genuine factual disputes that TVA, Jackson County and Scottsboro cannot obtain judgment in their favor without a trial.
SEPB is the exception. It leaves the case with summary judgment in its favor, while the remaining parties move toward a trial that will determine responsibility for a tragedy that forever changed eight families, every Jackson County first responder and the Jackson County community.
