Byrd v. Byrd

• Citation: 657 F.2d 615
• Decision Date: 25 August 1981
• Docket Number: No. 81-1038,81-1038
• Parties: Elsie Y. BYRD, Appellant, v. William E. BYRD, Appellee.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)

Page 615

657 F.2d 615

63 A.L.R.Fed. 381

Elsie Y. BYRD, Appellant, v. William E. BYRD, Appellee.

No. 81-1038.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued May 4, 1981.

Decided Aug. 25, 1981.

Sidney H. Kelsey, Jr., Norfolk, Va. (Kelsey & Kelsey, Charles E. Sizemore, Jr., Moss, Moss & Sizemore, Norfolk, Va., on brief), for appellant.

William B. Eley, Norfolk, Va. (Eley, Rutherford & Leafe, Norfolk, Va., on brief), for appellee.

Before FIELD, Senior Circuit Judge, MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judge, and ERWIN, ^* District Judge.

MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judge:

The question presented by the instant case whether interspousal immunity applies within the federal admiralty jurisdiction to preclude a tort action by a wife against her husband for injuries sustained by her while on the husband's pleasure boat in navigable waters is truly one of first impression. Authority, not only cases but comment by the treatise authors as well, appears to be nonexistent. ¹

The appeal arises out of a suit by appellant wife against her husband for injuries sustained by her on September 16, 1978, allegedly as a result of her husband's negligence in maintaining an unsafe boat. Appellant was injured, while on board her husband's pleasure craft in the navigable waters of the United States, ² when the deck chair in which she was seated fell from the flying bridge where it had been placed. Appellant, seeking damages, sued her husband in admiralty in the Eastern District of Virginia. She claimed that her husband was negligent in failing either to affix the deck chair permanently to the deck of the flying bridge or to provide guard rails around the bridge. ³

Appellee admitted jurisdiction, denied liability, and raised, as an affirmative defense and by motion to dismiss, Virginia's doctrine of interspousal immunity. The district court ruled that Virginia law controlled and that Virginia continued to recognize the doctrine of interspousal immunity and would apply it in this case. It, therefore, dismissed the suit, from which dismissal the wife appeals.

Both parties agree that the instant case falls within the Court's admiralty jurisdiction. This is clearly correct. Richards v. Blake Builders Supply, Inc., 528 F.2d 745 (4th Cir. 1975) (Haynsworth, C. J.). ⁴ It does not, however, in and of itself, provide an answer to the question posed by the case. All cases involving a tort committed on navigable water, whether brought under federal admiralty jurisdiction, in state court under the saving-to-suitors clause, or in federal court under diversity jurisdiction, are governed by admiralty law. Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625, 628, 79 S.Ct. 406, 408, 3 L.Ed.2d 550 (1959). But admiralty law, at times, looks to state law, either statutory or decisional, to supply the rule of decision where there is no admiralty rule on point. E. g., Wilburn Boat Co. v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co., 348 U.S. 310, 75 S.Ct. 368, 99 L.Ed. 337 (1955); Bell v. Tug Shrike, 332 F.2d 330 (4th Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 844, 85 S.Ct. 84, 13 L.Ed.2d 49 (1964). The Supreme Court in Wilburn Boat, a case concerning a marine insurance contract, stated:

Congress has not taken over the regulation of marine insurance contracts and has not dealt with the effect of marine insurance warranties at all; hence there is no possible question here of conflict between state law and any federal statute. But this does not answer the questions presented, since in the absence of controlling Acts of Congress this Court has fashioned a large part of the existing rules that govern admiralty. And States can no more override such judicial rules validly fashioned than they can override Acts of Congress. (Citation omitted.) Consequently the crucial questions in this case narrow down to these: (1) Is there a judicially established federal admiralty rule governing these warranties? (2) If not, should we fashion one?

348 U.S. at 314, 75 S.Ct. at 370.

In the instant case, no federal statute speaks to the applicability of interspousal immunity in an admiralty case. Nor has either party, the district court or this Court been able to find any federal case which has even considered the question, much less established a federal admiralty rule determining it. The question in this case is, therefore, whether we should establish a federal admiralty rule governing interspousal immunity in maritime tort suits or whether we should look to applicable state law to provide the rule of decision. ⁵

A state law, even though it does not contravene an established principle of admiralty law will, nevertheless, not be applied where its adoption would impair the uniformity and simplicity which is a basic principle of the federal admiralty law, Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc., 398 U.S. 375, 402, 90 S.Ct. 1772, 1788, 26 L.Ed.2d 339 (1970); Kermarec, supra, 358 U.S. at 631, 79 S.Ct. at 410, or where its application would defeat an otherwise meritorious maritime cause of action. St. Hilaire Moye v. Henderson, 496 F.2d 973, 980 (8th Cir. 1974) cert. denied, 419 U.S. 884, 95 S.Ct. 151, 42 L.Ed.2d 125 (1974); In re M/T Alva Cape, 405 F.2d 962, 969-71 (2d Cir. 1969). See Moore v. Hampton Roads Sanitation District Commission, 557 F.2d 1030, 1035 (4th Cir. 1976), reheard en banc and decided on other grounds, 557 F.2d 1037 (4th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1012, 98 S.Ct. 725, 54 L.Ed.2d 755 (1978). The state law involved here fails on both accounts.

Whereas at one time interspousal immunity in tort actions was, without significant exception, the law of all the states, presently, in whole or in part, thirty-two states have abrogated the doctrine. ⁶ On the other hand, eighteen states and the District of Columbia seem still to apply it generally. ⁷ Moreover, in those states where the doctrine has been abrogated, even greater disunity exists. Some states have abolished the doctrine entirely. Others have abolished it only in cases of intentional torts. Still others have abolished it only in cases arising out of automobile accidents, or only in cases of outrageous, intentional torts, or some other class of cases. ⁸ Clearly, reference to state law in deciding maritime tort suits between a husband and wife will not lead to uniform decisions.

Additionally, it is the standards of maritime law which measure rights and liabilities arising from conduct occurring on vessels on the navigable waters. Negligence in the operation of a boat creates a federal right of recovery in all who are injured by the negligence. St. Hilaire Moye, supra, 496 F.2d at 980-81. Therefore, application of a state's law on interspousal immunity, if that state does not permit suits between spouses arising out of negligent torts, as appellee husband contends that the law of Virginia did not, would operate to defeat a substantial admiralty right of recovery. ⁹ See St. Hilaire Moye, supra, 496 F.2d at 980-81 (Court refused to apply state boat guest statute because it would defeat federal right of recovery and disrupt uniformity of admiralty law). It is clear, therefore, that fashioning an admiralty rule dealing with interspousal immunity will further the goal of a uniform admiralty law. Additionally, since we decide that federal admiralty law will not recognize interspousal immunity, our refusal to apply Virginia's law of interspousal immunity (assuming that, as defendant argues, the applicable state law would bar this suit) ensures that no federal right of recovery will be defeated by application of state law. ¹⁰

There may, of course, be questions which, while arising in the context of an admiralty case, are so evidently local in nature and impact that a state's local interest clearly outweighs the federal interest in national uniformity. E. g., Tug Shrike, supra, 332 F.2d 330 (beneficiary under Jones Act determined by looking to state law of domestic relations). Or, the area may be one where a declaration of preemption by federal rule would leave a complex area largely unregulated, despite complete regulation by the states. E. g., Wilburn Boat, supra, 348 U.S. at 316-20, 75 S.Ct. at 371-74. This case is neither of these.

In Wilburn Boat, supra, the question presented to the Court was whether it should adopt a state rule relating to marine insurance contracts or fashion a federal one, there being no existing federal rule or policy dealing with the subject. The Court reviewed cases decided by it holding that the states could regulate all types of insurance, including marine, then reviewed the history of congressional action in the field ending with a discussion of the McCarran Act ¹¹ in which it said:

The measure Congress passed shortly thereafter, known as the McCarran Act, was designed to assure that existing state power to regulate insurance would continue. Accordingly, the Act contains a broad declaration of congressional policy that the continued regulation of insurance by the States is in the public interest, and that silence on the part of Congress should not be construed to impose any barrier to continued regulation of insurance by the States.

The hearings on the McCarran Act reveal the complexities and difficulties of an attempt to unify insurance law on a nationwide basis, even by Congress. Courts would find such a task far more difficult. Congress in passing laws is not limited to the narrow factual situation of a particular controversy as courts are in deciding lawsuits. And Congress could replace the presently functioning state regulations of marine insurance by one comprehensive Act. Courts, however, could only do it piecemeal, on a case-by-case basis. Such a creeping approach would result in leaving marine insurance largely unregulated for years to come.

348 U.S. at 319, 75 S.Ct. at 373 (footnotes omitted). The Court therefore determined that institution of a federal rule regarding marine insurance was better handled by Congress, which could regulate the whole field, than by the courts and held that...