PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY BASED ON APPLICATION OF "THE PENNSYLVANIA RULE," WHERE FLORIDA STATUTES REGARDING RECREATIONAL BOATING SAFETY WERE VIOLATED.
RONALD TASSINARI, an individual, SHEILA SILVA, individually, and as next best friend of ASHLEY SILVA, a minor, Plaintiffs, vs. KEY WEST WATER TOURS, L.C., a Florida corporation, Defendant. KEY WEST WATER TOURS, L.C., a Florida corporation, Third-Party Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY WILKERSON, Third-Party Defendant.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46490
June 27, 2007, Decided
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff injured parties sued Defendant personal watercraft rental agency for damages allegedly sustained as a result of an accident during one of Defendant's guided wave runner tours. Defendants moved for summary judgment on several issues: 1) they are entitled to exoneration from liability because there is no evidence of negligence; 2) they are entitled to limit their liability to the value of the vessel; 3) Florida statutory law does not apply; and 4) plaintiff's claims are barred by contractual waiver. Plaintiffs move for summary judgment under the Pennsylvania Rule.
OVERVIEW: The court found that Florida statutory law does apply where it does not conflict with Federal Maritime Law. Furthermore, the Pennsylvania rule ,which is Admiralty's equivalent of negligence per se, does apply where defendants violated Florida statutes designed to promote recreational boating safety. Defendants were not entitled to limitation of liability under the limitation act because according to the Pennsylvania Rule, defendant's violation of Florida statutes is presumed to have caused the collision, and the court found that defendant knew or should have known of the violation of these statutes. The release and waiver provisions in the rental contracts, while sufficient to release defendants from ordinary negligence, were invalid as against public policy when applied to liability arising from violation of these statutes.
OUTCOME: The Court granted Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Defendant's liability because of the Pennsylvania Rule. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment was denied.
