Doles v. KODEN INTERN., INC.

• Decision Date: 02 March 2001
• Docket Number: No. 5D00-65.,5D00-65.
• Citation: 779 So.2d 609
• Parties: William DOLES and Blue Channel Fisheries, Inc., Appellants, v. KODEN INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

779 So.2d 609

William DOLES and Blue Channel Fisheries, Inc., Appellants, v. KODEN INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Appellees.

No. 5D00-65.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

March 2, 2001.

James F. Cummins, Inverness, for Appellants.

Edward F. Ryan of Holland & Knight LLP, Chicago, IL, and Steven L. Brannock of Holland & Knight LLP, Tampa, for Appellee Litton Systems, Inc.

No Appearance for Appellee Koden International, Inc.

SAWAYA, J.

Two fishermen tragically died at sea. The third member of the crew fortunately survived. The estates of the decedents, Jason Palmore and Clifford Stanley, filed wrongful death actions and the survivor, Mark Mekelberg, filed a personal injury action against the Appellants who were the owners of the doomed vessel. The claims made by both estates were based on the doctrine of unseaworthiness, the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.App. § 688, and the Death On The High Seas Act (DOSHA), 46 U.S.C.App. § 761 et seq. The claims made by Mark were based on the doctrine of unseaworthiness and the Jones Act. The Appellants settled these claims and brought a third party action for indemnity¹ against Litton Systems, Inc. (Litton), the manufacturer of an allegedly defective emergency signaling device which failed during the fateful odyssey of the crew after the boat sank.

The trial court entered an order dismissing the third party complaint with prejudice based on the decision in Bodzo v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 498 So.2d 446 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), wherein the court held that indemnity is not available to the owner or consumer of a defective product because an owner or consumer cannot be vicariously or strictly liable to third parties for injuries caused by the product. Accordingly, the issue in this case is whether the Appellants, as owners of the defective signaling device manufactured by Litton, may be vicariously or strictly liable for the injuries the defective device caused to Mark and for the deaths of the decedents. If the Appellants may be held vicariously or strictly liable, indemnity is a remedy they may pursue to recover from Litton. See Houdaille Indus., Inc. v. Edwards, 374 So.2d 490 (Fla.1979). We reverse.

For case of discussion of this issue, this opinion will address the following in separate sections: 1) the factual background of this case; 2) the pleading requirements to state a cause of action for indemnity; 3) evolution of the doctrine of unseaworthiness into a rule of strict liability under admiralty law; 4) application of the unseaworthiness doctrine to the claims made pursuant to the Jones Act and DOSHA; and 5) the conclusion.

Factual Background

In order to determine whether dismissal is proper in the instant case, we must chronicle the events leading up to this tragic maritime accident from the facts alleged in the complaint.² At the time of the accident, the Appellants were the owners of the fishing vessel, Michelle Lee, which was equipped with a Marine Satellite Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacon manufactured by Litton. The Appellants allege that this device was properly installed on the vessel and registered with the appropriate authorities.

On April 3, 1993, the Appellants hired Mark as an independent contractor to captain the Michelle Lee on a fishing trip in the Gulf of Mexico. Mark hired Clifford and Jason as his crew and they set out on April 7 from Crystal River, Florida. The weather was calm and clear when they departed. They anchored the vessel approximately 70 miles off shore that evening and went to sleep. Hours later, they awoke and realized that the Michelle Lee was in danger because Mark had negligently anchored the vessel earlier that evening. The crew safely escaped by boarding a life raft, taking with them the emergency signaling device which they repeatedly attempted to engage. However, the device failed and never sent its life-saving signal to the Coast Guard. Mark finally tied the device to a cooler and released it from the life raft in the hopes that it would be discovered. The device has never been found and is presumed lost in the Gulf of Mexico. In the late hours of the night of April 9, Clifford and Jason died from exposure. Mark continued to drift in the life raft until he was rescued from his misery by a pleasure vessel on April 11.

In their claim for indemnity against Litton, the Appellants allege that the crew relied on the signaling device to function according to its intended purpose by sending a rescue signal to the Coast Guard, which has a reliable rescue program that responds to all signals made by such devices. The Appellants further allege that two men lost their lives and Mark suffered serious injuries because this device was defective and failed to perform the function for which it was intended. Appellants also allege that they were not negligent; they in no way caused the sinking of the vessel or the malfunction of the defective signaling device; and their liability is based on the theory that the Michelle Lee was unseaworthy because of the defective device manufactured by Litton.

Pleading Requirements To State A Cause Of Action For Indemnity

It is well settled that indemnity shifts the entire loss from one who is without fault and who has paid a third party based on liability that is vicarious, constructive, or derivative to the party who actually committed the wrongful act. Houdaille. Thus "[i]n order to properly plead a cause of action for common law indemnity, the party seeking indemnity must allege in his complaint 1) that he is wholly without fault; 2) that the party from whom he is seeking indemnity is at fault; and 3) that he is liable to the injured party only because he is vicariously, constructively, derivatively, or technically liable for the wrongful acts of the party from whom he is seeking indemnity." Florida Farm Bureau, 763 So.2d at 435; see also Dade County School Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So.2d 638 (Fla.1999); Houdaille.

We find that the allegations contained in the Appellants' complaint against Litton, taken in the light most favorable to the Appellants, are sufficient to comply with these pleading requirements. See Florida Farm Bureau. Appellants alleged that they were completely without fault and that Litton was negligent and caused the loss to the decedents and to Mark. Most importantly, the Appellants allege that they were obligated to pay because of their position as owners of an unseaworthy vessel under admiralty law. This allegation distinguishes the instant case from Bodzo because, as we explain seriatim, the doctrine of unseaworthiness, as an integral part of admiralty law, makes a vessel owner strictly liable for the equipment on a vessel.

Evolution Of The Doctrine Of Unseaworthiness As A Rule Of Strict Liability Under Admiralty Law

The instant case falls within the domain of admiralty law because it involves claims arising out of injury or death to persons related to a vessel on or in navigable waters during the course of traditional maritime activity.³See Sisson v. Ruby, 497 U.S. 358, 110 S.Ct. 2892, 111 L.Ed.2d 292 (1990); Foremost Ins. Co. v. Richardson, 457 U.S. 668, 102 S.Ct. 2654, 73 L.Ed.2d 300 (1982); Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, 409 U.S. 249, 93 S.Ct. 493, 34 L.Ed.2d 454 (1972); See also Yamaha Motor Corp. v. Calhoun, 516 U.S. 199, 116 S.Ct. 619, 133 L.Ed.2d 578 (1996); Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527, 115 S.Ct. 1043, 130 L.Ed.2d 1024 (1995). The consequence of being an admiralty case is that substantive maritime law applies. See Yamaha Motor Corp.; Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn, 346 U.S. 406, 74 S.Ct. 202, 98 L.Ed. 143 (1953).

Encompassed within the ambit of maritime law is the doctrine of unseaworthiness which has evolved into a rule of strict liability. See Yamaha Motor Corp.; Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U.S. 19, 111 S.Ct. 317, 112 L.Ed.2d 275 (1990). The judicially created doctrine of unseaworthiness was initially established by the Supreme Court in The Osceola, 189 U.S. 158, 23 S.Ct. 483, 47 L.Ed. 760 (1903). The Court defined this remedy as one for "indemnity for injuries received by seamen in consequence of the unseaworthiness of the ship, or a failure to supply and keep in order the proper appliances appurtenant to the ship." Id. at 175, 23 S.Ct. 483 (citation omitted). The transformation of the doctrine of unseaworthiness into a strict liability rule was discussed in Yamaha Motor Corp., wherein the Supreme Court stated:

Prior to 1944, unseaworthiness "was an obscure and relatively little used" liability standard, largely because "a shipowner's duty at that time was only to use due diligence to provide a seaworthy ship." Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U.S. 19, 25, 111 S.Ct. 317, 322, 112 L.Ed.2d 275 (1990) (internal quotation marks omitted). See also Moragne [v. States Marine Lines, Inc.], 398 U.S. [375], at 398-399, 90 S.Ct. [1772], at 1786-1787 [26 L.Ed.2d 339 (1970)]. Mahnich v. Southern S.S. Co., 321 U.S. 96, 64 S.Ct. 455, 88 L.Ed. 561 (1944), however, notably expanded a shipowner's liability to injured seamen by imposing a nondelegable duty "to furnish a vessel and appurtenances reasonably fit for their intended use." Mitchell v. Trawler Racer Inc., 362 U.S. 539, 550, 80 S.Ct. 926, 933, 4 L.Ed. 941 (1960). The duty imposed was absolute; failure to supply a safe ship resulted in liability "irrespective of fault and irrespective of the intervening negligence of crew members." Miles, 498 U.S., at 25, 111 S.Ct., at 322. The unseaworthiness doctrine thus became a "species of liability without fault," Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U.S. 85, 94, 66 S.Ct. 872, 877, 90 L.Ed. 1099 (1946), and soon eclipsed ordinary negligence as the primary basis of recovery when a seafarer was injured or killed. Miles, 498 U.S., at 25-26, 111 S.Ct., at 321-322.

516 U.S. at 208, 116 S.Ct. 619 (footnote omitted).

As the Court noted, the doctrine is not limited to the structure of the vessel but...