US Supreme Court Rules That Federal Boat Safety Act Does Not Protect Marine Manufactureres From Being Sued In State Court
December, 2002
by Kimbley A. Kearney and
In Sprietsma v. Mercury Marine, 123 S.Ct. 518 (2002), the United States Supreme Court held that the Federal Boat Safety Act (“FBSA”) does not preempt state common law negligence claims. No longer does federal maritime law protect marine manufacturers from varying state safety requirements.
Facts
Plaintiff’s wife died in 1995 after falling from a speedboat and being hit by the motor’s propeller blades. Plaintiff sued the engine designer in Illinois state court for common law negligence. Plaintiff alleged that the engine should have been equipped with a propeller guard. The trial court dismissed the action and the appellate court affirmed, finding that the FBSA expressly preempted the action. The FBSA, passed in 1971, sets forth national safety standards for boats. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed dismissal, but on grounds of implied preemption.
Analysis
The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed and remanded. In a unanimous opinion, the Court ruled that the FBSA did not preempt plaintiff’s cause of action. The Court found that common law claims were not encompassed by the Act’s express preemption clause, which applies to “a [state or local] law or regulation.” That conclusion was reinforced by the Act’s savings clause, which states that compliance with the Act’s requirements does not relieve a person from common law liability.
The Court also relied on the fact that the Coast Guard – as the body charged with the authority to regulate boat safety – does not require the use of propeller guards. The decision not to regulate that aspect of boat safety (because the available data did not meet the stringent criteria for federal regulation) is consistent with an intent to preserve state regulatory authority. Further, the Coast Guard’s decision did not convey an “authoritative” message of a federal policy against propeller guards.
The Court rejected the Illinois Supreme Court’s holding that the FBSA impliedly preempted plaintiff’s claim. The Act does not require the Coast Guard to promulgate comprehensive regulations covering every aspect of boat safety, or to certify every boat subject to its jurisdiction. Further, the FBSA does not convey a clear and manifest intent to completely occupy the field of boat safety regulation so as to foreclose state common law remedies.
The Court rejected the engine designer’s argument that preemption was required in order to preserve federal uniformity. That goal did not justify displacement of state common law remedies that compensate accident victims and their families and promote boating safety.
Learning Point:
This case has important implications for the role of common law tort claims in federal maritime law. The decision effectively erodes federal uniformity of boat safety regulations. No longer will marine manufacturers be subject only to the FBSA’s safety requirements, but also, potentially, the regulations of all 50 states. This translates into more boating accident lawsuits in more venues. Marine manufacturers should therefore familiarize themselves with the safety regulations of all states where they do business, and prepare for increased exposure to liability for any violation of those regulations.
Back to CM Report of Recent Decisions (2002v4) 2002 Volume 4 Table of Contents
