Cruise Ship Law

IN A JONES ACT CASE, TOLLING OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS APPROPRIATE WHERE (1) A PLAINTIFF BEGINS AN ACTION IN A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION, (2) THE PLAINTIFF MAKES SERVICE OF PROCESS ON THE OPPOSING PARTY, AND (3) THE STATE COURT DISMISSES THE ACTION BECAUSE OF IMPROPER VENUE

THOMAS D. NASH, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v USSGREAT LAKES FLEET, INC, Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

No. 228948
COURT OF APPEALS OF MICHIGAN
2002 Mich. App. LEXIS 712
May 14, 2002, Decided

PRIOR HISTORY: Presque Isle Circuit Court. LC No. 98-002281-NO.

DISPOSITION: Affirmed.

OVERVIEW: Plaintiff sought to recover for injuries he sustained while employed as a seaman aboard defendant's ship. Plaintiff asserted two theories of recovery: 1) defendant's negligence under the Jones Act, 46 USC 688, and 2) defendant's failure to provide a safe workplace under the common-law maritime doctrine of "unseaworthiness." Defendant moved for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7), contending plaintiff had not filed the action within the three-year statute of limitation. 46 USC 763a. Plaintiff did not dispute that it filed this action more than three years after his injury aboard defendant's ship. However, the circuit court denied defendant's motion, finding that plaintiff's previous filing of these claims in a Pennsylvania state court equitably tolled the limitations period. Equitable tolling of a federal statute of limitations is appropriate where the congressional purpose in enacting a statute and the corresponding limitations period is effectuated by tolling that period in given circumstances. In a Jones Act action, the congressional purpose is served, and tolling appropriately applied, when (1) a plaintiff begins an action in a state court of competent jurisdiction, (2) the plaintiff makes service of process on the opposing party, and (3) the state court dismisses the action because of improper venue. As such, because plaintiff did not properly serve defendant in Pennsylvania, plaintiff's filing in that state was insufficient to equitably toll the statute of limitations. Accordingly, plaintiff's Michigan claim was time-barred, and the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion for summary disposition.

OUTCOME: The trial court correctly granted defendant's motion for summary disposition.