U.S. Supreme Court to Consider Illinois Supreme Court's Ruling That Federal Boat Safety Act Preempts State Law
April, 2002
by Kimbley A. Kearney and Maria Z. Vathis
In Sprietsma v. Mercury Marine, 757 N.E.2d 75 (Ill. 2001), the survivor of a passenger who fell from a motor boat and was struck by the motor’s propeller blades sued Mercury Marine, the engine’s designer, claiming that the motor should have been equipped with propeller guards. Mercury Marine argued that the Federal Boat Safety Act (“FBSA”), which does not require the use of propeller guards, and Coast Guard regulations should govern liability standards in cases falling within admiralty jurisdiction to the exclusion of state law. The Illinois Supreme Court agreed, ruling in favor of Mercury Marine. The United States Supreme Court has granted certiorari.
The Federal Boat Safety Act And Coast Guard Regulations
Congress enacted the FBSA in 1971 due to an increase in the number of boating accidents. The goal of the FBSA was to create a uniform boating safety program for the nation. The FBSA authorized the Secretary of Transportation to establish minimum safety standards for recreational vessels. The Secretary of Transportation delegated the regulatory authority for the safety standards to the Commandant of the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard proceeded to consult with the National Boating Safety Advisory Council (“Advisory Council”) to assess the need for regulations.
In 1988, the Coast Guard considered the impact of a regulation requiring manufacturers to install propeller guards on their motor boats. The Coast Guard directed the Advisory Council to analyze the data and assess the advantages and disadvantages of propeller guards. The Advisory Council created a Propeller Guard Subcommittee to study the issue. Upon consideration of the data, the Subcommittee advised that the “Coast Guard should take no regulatory action to require propeller guards.” Id. at 78. Generally, the Subcommittee had found that propeller guards increase the chance of blunt force contact to a person in the water and create a new hazard of a limb being caught between the guard and the propeller blades.
The Issue of Preemption
Federal Preemption
The plaintiff first argued that his claims were health and safety concerns, and the state traditionally regulates these matters. Because the cause of action arose during the operation of vessels on navigable waters, the Illinois Supreme Court determined that federal concerns predominated over state concerns.
Express Preemption
The Court also addressed whether the FBSA and Coast Guard regulations expressly preempted the plaintiff’s state law actions against the defendant. Section 4306 of the United States Code preempts state laws and regulations that are not identical to regulations promulgated under the FBSA. 46 U.S.C. § 4306 (1994). However, the savings clause provision of § 4311(g) states that “compliance with this chapter does not relieve a person from liability at common law or under state law.” 46 U.S.C. § 4311(g) (1994). This provision prevented the Court from finding express preemption, because § 4311 limits the scope of § 4306.
Implied Preemption
The next issue considered by the Illinois Supreme Court was whether the FBSA and Coast Guard regulations impliedly preempted the plaintiff from bringing state law claims against the defendant. The Court held that the plaintiff’s state law claims were impliedly preempted by federal law, Id. at 87, reasoning that “where the Coast Guard has been presented with an issue, studied it, and affirmatively decided as a substantive matter that it was not appropriate to impose a requirement, that decision takes on the character of a regulation and the FBSA’s objective of national uniformity mandates that state law not provide a result different than the Coast Guard’s.” Id. at 86. Because the FBSA’s goal was to establish a uniform boating safety program for the nation, the court determined that the enactment of a state law requiring propeller guards would undermine the objectives of the FBSA.
Learning Point:
The United States Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in this case is of great concern to many admiralty practitioners. In recent years, as evidenced by its decision in Calhoun v. Yamaha Motor Corp., 516 U.S. 199 (1996), the Supreme Court has shown considerable interest in the issue of preemption of state law in admiralty cases. Many practitioners believe that the Supreme Court may wish to use a case like Sprietsma to find further exceptions to the principle that admiralty law should govern cases falling within admiralty jurisdiction to the exclusion of state law. In Calhoun, the Supreme Court held that state law wrongful death remedies could be applied instead of admiralty law in a recreational boating case involving the death of a teenager. It remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will allow state regulations to begin setting the standards of conduct in admiralty cases.
An amicus brief is being filed in Sprietsma by the Maritime Law Association of the United States (“MLA”). In its brief, the MLA stressed the fact that the FBSA made an affirmative and informed decision to refrain from requiring the installation of propeller guards. It is the MLA’s position that the nature of recreational boating requires uniform standards of conduct and that any state law claims would be preempted, because maritime products liability principles govern this case. Interestingly, the parties in Spriestma did not recognize that the case fell within admiralty jurisdiction until the MLA brief writers alerted them to that fact.
Back to CM Report of Recent Decisions (2002v2) 2002 Volume 2 Table of Contents
