Burke v. Quick Lift, Inc.
| Decision Date | 16 November 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 05-CV-3731 (JFB)(WDW).,05-CV-3731 (JFB)(WDW). |
| Citation | 464 F.Supp.2d 150 |
| Parties | Joseph and Maria BURKE, Plaintiffs, v. QUICK LIFT, INC., and Staten Island Boat Sales, Defendants. Quick Lift, Inc., Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Carver Boat Corporation, LLC, Third-Party Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
George N. Proios, Esq.; Law Offices of George N. Proios, New York City, and J. Stephen Simms, John S. Simms, and W. Charles Bailey, Jr., Esqs., Simms Showers LLP, Baltimore, MD, for Plaintiffs.
Patrick Corbett. Esq., Badiak & Will, Mineola, NY, for Defendant Quick Lift, Inc.
David Patrick Feehan, Esq., Hoey, King, Toker, & Epstein, New York City, for Defendant Quick Lift, Inc.
Francis Turner, Esq., Healy & Baillie, LLP, New York City, and Jeffrey D. Smith, Esq., Varnum, Riddering, Schmidt & Howlett, LLP, Kalamazoo, MI, for Third-Party Defendant Carver Boat Corp., LLC.
This is an action brought in admiralty, pursuant to Rule 9(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs Dr. Joseph and Maria Burke (the "Burkes") bring this maritime and derivative torts action against defendants Quick Lift, Inc., ("Quick Lift") and Staten Island Boat Sales ("SIBS") (collectively, "defendants"), alleging that `the Burkes were injured as a result of defendants' failure to properly install a piece of equipment on a yacht purchased by the Burkes. This Court has jurisdiction over the Burkes' claims under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1333 and 1367. Defendants move to dismiss the complaint, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.1 For the reasons that follow, the motion is denied.
Defendant Quick Lift also brings a third-party claim against third-party defendant Carver Boat Corporation, LLC ("Carver"), alleging that any damages suffered by the Burkes were caused by Carver. Carver moves pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) to dismiss the third-party complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. For the reasons that follow, the motion is denied.
Carver also moves, under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to impose sanctions against Quick Lift for filing a frivolous third-party complaint. For the reasons that follow, that motion is also denied.
For the purposes of defendants' motion, the facts as alleged in the complaint are assumed to be true and are construed in a light most favorable to plaintiffs, the non-moving party.
Dr. Joseph and Maria Burke, husband and wife, are residents of Nassau County, New York. (Compl. ¶ 3.) Defendant Quick Lift is a corporation, incorporated in Florida, that manufactures and installs hydraulic davits on boats. (Compl. ¶ 4.) A davit is a mechanical device on a vessel that is used to lift dinghys, or small boats, from the water's surface onto the bridge of the vessel. (Compl. ¶ 24; Pls.'s Response in Opposition ("Pls.'s Response") at 5 & n. 5.)
SIBS is a corporation, incorporated in New York, that sells boats, and is an authorized dealer of boats manufactured by Carver. (Compl. ¶ 5.) Generally, SIBS takes title to boats from Carver, and then re-sells those boats to buyers, such as the Burkes. (Compl. ¶ 5.)
In April 2003, Dr. Burke visited SIBS to discuss buying a particular boat, the Carver 450 Voyager (the "Voyager"). (Compl. ¶ 5.) Dr. Burke wanted a Voyager with certain features, but SIBS did not have a boat in-stock that had the requested features. (Compl. ¶ 6.) Accordingly, in order to induce Dr. Burke to purchase the Voyager that SIBS had in-stock, SIBS offered to install a boat-lift davit, and other features, on the Voyager at no additional charge. (Compl. ¶ 7.)
Dr. Burke agreed to purchase the Voyager that SIBS had in-stock, as long as he could take delivery of the boat by Memorial Day weekend of 2000. (Compl. ¶ 8.) Initially, SIBS told Dr. Burke that it could not meet the Memorial Day delivery deadline, but when Dr. Burke later threatened to not purchase the Voyager, SIBS relented and agreed to meet the deadline. (Compl. ¶¶ 9-11.)
Prior to delivery of the Voyager, SIBS hired Quick Lift to install a "low-profile hydraulic yacht davit" on the boat. (Compl. ¶ 12.) SIBS also installed, on its own, a range of other features on the Voyager. (Compl. ¶ 12.) All of the additional features were installed on the Voyager after SIBS had taken title and possession of the boat from Carver. (Compl. ¶ 12.)
The Burkes took delivery of the Voyager in May 2033. (Compl. ¶ 13.) After taking delivery, the Burkes experienced many problems with the Voyager, including, but not limited to, a weight imbalance, leaking interiors, electrical shortages, and multiple engine and exhaust problems. (Compl. ¶¶ 14-23.)
On April 19, 2005, the Burkes were preparing their boat to leave a port in the Bahamas. (Compl. ¶ 24.) That day, they were using the davit to hoist a dinghy onto the Voyager for storage.2 (Compl. ¶ 24.) Mrs. Burke was located on the bridge of the Voyager, where she could manually control the davit with one hand and, with her other hand, hold the device that operated the davit's cable. (Compl. ¶ 24.) Dr. Burke stood below on the aft deck of the Voyager. (Compl. ¶ 25.) When the dinghy was raised, Mrs. Burke reached out with one hand to pull in the davit in order to position the dinghy over its storage berth. (Compl. ¶ 25.) As she pulled in the davit, she heard a loud cracking sound, and the davit dropped one to two feet. (Compl. ¶ 25.) Mrs. Burke grabbed the falling davit with both hands in an effort to keep the davit, and the dinghy to which it was still connected, from falling onto the aft deck of the Voyager and on top of Dr. Burke. (Compl. ¶ 5.)
Mrs. Burke was pulled into an "unnatural position" by the falling davit arm and, as a result, sustained serious injury to her back. (Compl. ¶ 26.) Mrs. Burke has experienced excruciating pain as a result of her injuries and, for a time, was barely able to move. (Compl. ¶ 26.)
According to plaintiffs, the davit arm malfunctioned because the "top plate" that connects the davit arm to the boat experienced a "catastrophic failure" — the plate broke away from the fiberglass decking that held it to the boat. (Compl. ¶ 27.) Further inspection of the davit arm revealed other deficiencies in its installation, including, but not limited to, the failure to install a bottom plate beneath the fiberglass decking, the failure to "thru-bolt" the top and bottom plates, and the use of "self-tapping machine screws" to secure the decking to the davit arm. (Compl. ¶ 27.)
On August 5, 2005, the Burkes filed a complaint against defendants Quick Lift and SIBS, alleging a maritime tort claim against both defendants for negligent installation, and a derivative claim for loss of consortium.3 Specifically, plaintiffs allege that SIBS and Quick Lift breached a duty to properly install the davit, thereby causing Mrs. Burke's injuries and giving rise to Dr. Burke's loss of consortium claim. (Compl. ¶ 34.) On July 14, 2006, defendants moved to dismiss the Burkes' complaint.
On October 12, 2005, Quick Lift filed a third-party complaint against Carver, alleging that any damages suffered by the Burkes were caused by the third-party defendant Carver. On July 14, 2006, third-party defendant Carver moved to dismiss Quick Lift's third-party complaint and, in a separate motion, to impose sanctions against Quick Lift for filing a frivolous pleading.
Although none of the parties have raised the issue of this Court's admiralty jurisdiction over the case, the Court will address the question sua sponte. See, e.g., McGinty v. New York, 251 F.3d 84, 90 (2d Cir.2001) () (internal quotation marks omitted).
This case satisfies the necessary conditions for exercising admiralty jurisdiction over plaintiffs' maritime tort claim. The complaint alleges facts showing (1) that the alleged tort occurred on or over "navigable waters"; (2) that the type of incident alleged has "a potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce"; and (3) that the conduct at issue bears a "substantial relationship to [a] traditional maritime activity." See LeBlanc v. Cleveland, 198 F.3d 353, 356 (2d Cir.1999) ); see also Sisson v. Ruby, 497 U.S. 358, 110 S.Ct. 2892, 111 L.Ed.2d 292 (1990); Smith v. Mitlof, 198 F.Supp.2d 492, 500 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (citing Keene Corp. v. United States, 700 F.2d 836, 843 (2d Cir.1983)).
First, the alleged tortious event occurred on navigable waters at a port in the Bahamas. See Sisson, 497 U.S. at 360, 110 S.Ct. 2892 (); Stanley v. Bertram-Trojan, Inc., 868 F.Supp. 541 (S.D.N.Y.1994) (). For purposes of determining admiralty jurisdiction, the tort "occurs" where the negligence "takes effect, not where the negligent act occurred." See Butler v. American Trawler Co., Inc., 887 F.2d 20, (1st Cir.1989); Cigna Property & Casualty Ins. Co., v. Bayliner Marine Corporation, No. 92 Civ. 7891(AGS), 1995 WL 125386, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. March 22, 1995) (); see also Woessner v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 757 F.2d 634, (5th Cir. 1985) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lyons v. Rienzi & Sons, Inc.
...June 10, 2011), CM/ECF No. 42; see alsoFed.R.Civ.P. 14(c) (impleader of admiralty or maritime claims); Burke v. Quick Lift, Inc., 464 F.Supp.2d 150, 161 n. 10 (E.D.N.Y.2006). Jurisdiction over Lyons' Jones Act claim is exercised pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331; his complaint includes a jury tr......
-
Lee v. Town of Southampton
...resolves all doubts in favor of the non-movant." Simmsv. Biondo, 158 F.R.D. 247, 249 (E.D.N.Y. 1994); see Burke v. Quick Lift, Inc., 464 F. Supp. 2d 150, 163 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) ("[W]hen divining the point at which an argument turns from merely losing to losing and sanctionable, courts must res......
-
GEICO Marine Ins. Co. v. Mandel
...hull insurance policy. "With admiralty jurisdiction comes the application of substantive admiralty law." Burke v. Quick Lift, Inc., 464 F. Supp. 2d 150, 157 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) (citing E. River S.S. Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval, Inc., 476 U.S. 858, 864 (1986)). "Absent a specific federal rule,......
-
Burke v. Quick Lift, Inc., 05-CV-3731 (JFB)(WDW).
...and, in a separate motion, to impose sanctions against Quick Lift for filing a frivolous pleading. On November 16, 2006, 464 F.Supp.2d 150 (E.D.N.Y.2006), the Court denied the motion to dismiss by defendants SIBS and Quick Lift, denied third-party defendant Carver's motion to dismiss the th......