Boat Seller And A Contractor Were Not Entitled To Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6) Dismissal Of Yacht Owners' Suit For Injuries Allegedly Sustained From The Improper Installation Of A Davit On Their Yacht. The Suit Was Timely Filed Under The Maritime Limitations
JOSEPH AND MARIA BURKE, Plaintiffs, VERSUS QUICK LIFT, INC., AND STATEN ISLAND BOAT SALES, Defendants. QUICK LIFT, INC., Third-Party Plaintiff, VERSUS CARVER BOAT CORPORATION, LLC, Third-Party Defendant.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83394
November 16, 2006, Decided
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiffs owners sued defendants, a boat seller and a contractor, alleging injuries from the failure to properly install a piece of equipment on a yacht they purchased. The contractor filed a third-party claim, impleading third-party defendant boat manufacturer. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The manufacturer moved to dismiss the third-party complaint and for the imposition of sanctions on the contractor.
OVERVIEW: The seller hired the contractor to install a boat-lift davit on the owner's yacht. While on a voyage, the davit malfunctioned and injured the owners. The court found that admiralty jurisdiction existed over the owners' tort claim because the complaint alleged facts showing that (1) the alleged tort occurred on or over navigable waters, (2) the incident had a potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce, and (3) the conduct bore a substantial relationship to a traditional maritime activity. Defendants sought dismissal of the complaint on the basis that it was time-barred. The court denied the motion, finding that a three year statute of limitations applied, that the cause of action accrued at the discovery of the underlying injury, and thus, that the complaint was timely because it was filed shortly after the davit allegedly malfunctioned and injured the owners. The court also denied the manufacturer's motion to dismiss the third-party claim because it stated a viable claim upon which the manufacturer could be liable either to the owners or to the contractor. As the third-party complaint stated a viable cause of action, the court denied the manufacturer's motion for sanctions.
OUTCOME: The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. In addition, the court denied the manufacturer's motion to dismiss the third-party complaint and its motion for sanctions.
