< Back to Previous Page
If They Rule In Favor Of Plaintiffs In Boat Accident Cases The Case Was Remanded Back To Circuit Court In Illinois Where The Original Lawsuit
Some have hailed the Supreme Court’s decision in a propeller guard case as a victory for accident victims and a long overdue kick in the pants to the marine industry and the U.S. Coast Guard for not proactively addressing propeller injuries. Others proclaim the decision a disaster for manufacturers and the uniformity of boat construction and equipment standards. So, which is it?
Few issues have so polarized the boating industry and boating safety community. Across the board, however, surprise was the initial reaction to the high court’s swift decision handed down Dec. 3.
In the case of Rex Sprietsma v. Mercury Marine, the Supreme Court ruled that the Coast Guard’s federal preemption over boating standards does not preclude a state court jury from hearing and awarding damages in a personal injury case involving an allegedly defective boat.
n this case, Jeanne Sprietsma was killed in 1995 when she fell off a ski boat and was struck by a Mercury 115-hp outboard’s propeller. The original lawsuit, filed by her husband in Cook County Circuit Court, IL, claimed Mercury’s engine was defective for not having a propeller guard, even though none is required by any state or federal regulation.
Over the years, the Coast Guard has commissioned research and reports on propeller safety and in 1990 decided not to promulgate regulations. Since then, the federal government has confined its interests to propeller hazards on houseboats and non-planing vessels.
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously against federal supremacy in this case, which some say not only encourages more lawsuits in our litigious society but gives non-expert juries the power to set de facto boating standards, case by case, if they rule in favor of plaintiffs in boat accident cases. The case was remanded back to circuit court in Illinois where the original lawsuit will be tried on its merits.
The attorney who argued the case for Mercury Marine said he was surprised by the quick decision but was not overly concerned about losing state level cases. Joe Pomeroy, general counsel for Mercury, said in about 15 trials held over two decades, when a case was allowed to be heard on the merits of having a propeller guard on a boat, all but two or three were decided in favor of the boat manufacturer.
“Four appellate decisions have held that the evidence of the efficacy of a propeller guard is inadequate to sustain a verdict (in favor of the plaintiff),” he said. Pomeroy, who said he has a thick binder filled with patented devices, added, “The supposition is that a prop guard would have to be better than not having one. All the testing we’ve done shows the contrary,” he said.
“People have asked me if we’ll see an explosion in these types of lawsuits and I don’t,” Pomeroy said. “Plaintiffs attorneys will continue to regard these as difficult cases to argue on the technical issues. They have to prove that a rotating engine propeller is defective.”
Manufacturers have some other concerns. If a court decision leads to a state requirement for a device, which then injures or kills a boater, will they also be sued for a “defective” guard device? “This should be of concern to everybody,” said Monita Fontaine, vice president of government relations for the National Marine Manufacturers Association, herself a maritime attorney. “It’s a complicated issue and there is a reason Congress gave the Coast Guard authority over boating regulations. The maritime world is not the same as terra firma and juries should not be making safety regulations.”
Fontaine believes it is quite possible for requirements for propeller guards to crop up in state legislatures, now that the Supreme Court has flung open the door. When this case reached the Supreme Court, some 17 state attorneys general filed amicus curiae briefs in support of Sprietsma.
“The need for uniformity is paramount,” she said. “Manufacturers cannot satisfy 50 different sets of rules and requirements. What’s required in one state could be countermanded in another. Where do you draw the line?”
The industry is looking to the U.S. Coast Guard to take a more definitive position to head off state action. Currently the Coast Guard has an active rulemaking in progress, calling for propeller accident preventive measures on houseboats and non-planing vessels. A committee of the National Boating Safety Advisory Council is also continuing work on the issue and may recommend additional regulations in the future.
“At this time, we do not intend to take regulatory action to state that prop guards will not be required,” said Capt. Scott Evans, chief of boating safety. He has ordered a thorough review of all accidents involving propeller injuries and fatalities going back at least five years to get a better handle on what conditions and activities precede these accidents. “We want to better identify what’s causing accidents and injuries and then we can attack that problem.”
Evans said the Supreme Court ruling has redefined how the agency’s activities will be viewed. In the past, he said, “Unless we ordered it, it wasn’t a requirement. Now it’s fair game unless we jump in.”
The court decision was hailed by one California women, but tinged with sadness that a case had to go all the way to the Supreme Court to spur some action. Marion Cruz, whose son was killed in a propeller accident on a rental houseboat, has been a tireless advocate of improving safety. She believes federal supremacy was a veil which for 30 years allowed the Coast Guard and the industry to avoid taking any action, she explained. “It’s been 30 years of resistance and now, finally, the court has said they’re responsible for doing something.
“I have no problem with the doctrine of preemption and uniformity. But in the absence of exercising your authority for 30 years, it should go somewhere. And it did — they sent it back to the states,” she said.
Cruz, who has read all the reports and followed other court cases on the propeller safety issue for SPIN, a group of victims and their families (Stop Propeller Injuries Now), as well as served on NSBAC, agrees there is no one solution for all boats. But that alone does not justify doing nothing, she said. She hopes the Coast Guard will take the lead and galvanize manufacturers to look for new solutions, even if they work for only one type of boat or environment.
|
