EILEEN O'HARA, RESPONDENT, v. BAYLINER, ET AL., APPELLANT, , ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.
89 N.Y.2d 636, 679 N.E.2d 1049, 657 N.Y.S.2d 569 (1997).
March 25, 1997
1 No. 40 (1997 NY Int. 40)
Decided March 25, 1997
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
John G. Ingram, for Appellants Bayliner, et al.
Submitted by Michael F. Harris, for Appellants Perko, Inc., et al.
Michael J. Deveraux, for Respondent.
BELLACOSA, J.:
In 1990, plaintiff, at age 16, was seriously hurt as she entered about
3 feet of water from a Bayliner water-ski boat anchored approximately
15 feet offshore. Her injuries were caused by a cleat affixed to the
boat. Plaintiff's complaint alleges that the cleat was defectively
designed and positioned, and that the boat was defectively
manufactured due to the lack of nonskid material and a handrail.
Defendants-appellants include the boat's designer, manufacturer and
distributor, and the designer, manufacturer and distributor of the
cleat. Other defendants are plaintiff's companion, who operated the
boat, and his father, who owned the boat.
Supreme Court and the Appellate Division denied defendants' (Bayliner
and Perko) respective motions to dismiss. Our courts held that Federal
admiralty law (which has no infancy tolling protection against its
three-year Statute of Limitations) did not govern this tort action.
Therefore, the New York courts held that New York State's tolling
provision against the running of the Statute of Limitations left
plaintiff's action timely (see, CPLR 214; CPLR 208). The Appellate
Division granted defendants leave to appeal to our Court on a
certified question. We now reverse, answer the question in the
negative and grant the motion to dismiss the complaint, as barred by
46 USC app §763a.
Despite a complicated procedural path, the dispositive issue for us to
resolve in this case is relatively straightforward. We must decide
whether Federal maritime law governs, based on pertinent United States
Supreme Court precedents and principles. We conclude that it does and
SNIPPETS:
EILEEN O'HARA, RESPONDENT, v. BAYLINER, ET AL., APPELLANT,, ET AL.,
In 1990, plaintiff, at age 16, was seriously hurt as she entered about 3 feet of water from a
Other defendants are plaintiff's companion, who operated the boat, and his father, who owned
Supreme Court and the Appellate Division denied defendants' respective motions to dismiss.
Our courts held that Federal admiralty law (which has no infancy tolling protection against
Therefore, the New York courts held that New York State's tolling provision against the
We must decide whether Federal maritime law governs, based on pertinent United States Supreme
We must first look to the test promulgated by the United States Supreme Court for determining
pre-emptive and applicable admiralty jurisdiction.
Historically, "f the wrong occurred on navigable waters, the action is within admiralty
The United States Supreme Court concluded that admiralty jurisdiction applies when the wrongs
The reasoning and test as to the second prong, which constitutes an extension of the more
In Foremost, the Court stated that "ecause the 'wrong' here involves the negligent operation
In Sisson v Ruby (497 US 358, supra (1990)), the Supreme Court added that maritime
The Supreme Court again invoked the "potentiality" linchpin and reasoned that "such a fire
The jurisdictional inquiry does not turn on the actual effects on maritime commerce of the
It tied its precedents together with a core policy line: "The need for uniform rules of
|
