COMPLAINT OF ROFFE
| Decision Date | 31 October 1989 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 89-1361CC. |
| Citation | 724 F. Supp. 9 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Complaint of Samuel C. ROFFE for exoneration from or limitation of liability as owner of Yamaha WaveJammer serial No. YAM-1-6067-C888. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
Charles A. Cordero, Old San Juan, P.R., for petitioner.
We have before us an action for exoneration from or limitation of liability filed by Samuel C. Roffe pursuant to the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of this Court, under the Limitation of Liability Act of 1851, 46 U.S.C. App. § 183, et seq.
On July 6, 1989, while operating a Yamaha WaveJammer rented for an hour from Roffe d/b/a Stingray Jets, Natalie Calhoun collided with the motor yacht Blue Peter, which was anchored offshore near Humacao, Puerto Rico. As a result of the collision, Calhoun suffered fatal injuries and the motor yacht was damaged. Although no formal claims have been filed against the petitioner, he seeks to limit his liability for any claims arising from the collision, to the value of the WaveJammer after the collision, that is, $2,500.00, which he has deposited with the court.
We must first confront the threshold issue of whether the Limitation of Liability Act of 1851 is applicable in this case in order to determine whether or not the petition states a claim upon which relief may be granted. There is no decisive ruling from the Supreme Court nor do we have interpretation from the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to serve as precedent. Other federal courts, that have tackled the question, are sorely divided on whether the Act applies to pleasure boats. That the Act was originally passed for the purpose of protecting the commercial shipping industry in the United States and placing it on an equal footing with those of other maritime nations is a generally accepted premise. Complaint of Tracey, 608 F.Supp. 263 (D.Mass.1985) and Matter of Lowing, 635 F.Supp. 520 (W.D.Mich. 1986), among other cases, meticulously set out the legislative history and the jurisprudential development of the Act and its later application to vessels of a non-commercial nature, so we do not repeat it here. Although the courts are split in their positions, we note, however, that the recent trend among those courts which have faced the issue has been to hold that the Act does not apply to pleasure crafts: compare Complaint of Sisson, 867 F.2d 341 (7th Cir.1989); Complaint of Myers, 721 F.Supp. 39 (W.D.N.Y.1989); Complaint of Keys Jet Ski, Inc., 704 F.Supp. 1057 (S.D. Fla.1989); Estate of Lewis, 683 F.Supp. 217 (N.D.Cal.1987); Matter of Lowing, 635 F.Supp. 520 (W.D.Mich.1986); Complaint of Tracey, 608 F.Supp. 263 (D.Mass.1985); Baldassano v. Larsen, 580 F.Supp. 415 (D.Minn.1984) () with In re Young, 872 F.2d 176 (6th Cir.1989);1Matter of Guglielmo, 704 F.Supp. 352 (E.D.N.Y.1989); In the Matter of Michael Roberto, 1987 AMC 982, 1986 WL 15685 (D.N.J.1986); Complaint of Brown, 536 F.Supp. 750 (N.D.Ohio 1982) ().
The Fourth Circuit, in its decision in Richards v. Blake Builders, 528 F.2d 745 (4th Cir.1975), expressed its discontent with the consequences of the application of the Limitation of Liability Act to pleasure boats:
Surely, the limitation of liability to the value of the boat of an owner without "privity or knowledge" of the fault in the context of a small pleasure craft capable of causing death or grievous injury is in conflict with our sense of justice and appropriateness. It may have been necessary to provide an owner of a commercial vessel with the right to limit his liability to the value of the vessel. American shipping was in competition with English shipping where there was such a right, and members of the industry may have thought in need of protection from exposure to all of the economic consequences of major disaster. But we can perceive no reason to extend that protection to the relatively affluent owners of pleasure boats and their insurers at the expense of those injured or killed and their families.
As pointed out by the U.S. District Court for the District in Massachusetts,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moeller v. Mulvey
...the Limitation of Liability Act, reflects the "recent trend among those courts which have faced the issue * * *." Complaint of Roffe, 724 F.Supp. 9, 10 (D.Puerto Rico 1989). For two reasons, we decline the invitation. First, we note that twice, in recent years, the Supreme Court has reaffir......
-
Greenley v. Meersman
...the only cases cited by the Magistrate Judge which might still be said to have some degree of persuasive value are Complaint of Roffe, 724 F.Supp. 9 (D.P.R.1989) and In re Tracey, 608 F.Supp. 263 (D.Mass.1985). Upon reviewing Complaint of Roffe and In re Tracey, the Court finds the reasonin......
-
Choat v. Kawasaki Motors Corp.
...question has not been unanimously resolved, and at least one court has answered the question in the negative. In Complaint of Roffe, 724 F.Supp. 9, 10-11 n. 2 (D.P.R.1989), the operator of a "WaveJammer" that she had rented from Roffe, was killed when she collided with a yacht. Id. at 9. Ro......
-
Pedraza v. Shell Oil Co.
... ... Pedraza was released from his employment by U.T.C. on July 6, 1981. Id ... Following his discharge, Pedraza filed a complaint against U.T.C. with the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities ("Commission"). Id. In his 724 F. Supp. 6 complaint, Pedraza ... ...