Deering v. NATIONAL MAINTENANCE & REPAIR, INC.
627 F.3d 1039
| 7th Cir. | 2010Background
- Deering, a riverboat pilot, was injured in a March 11, 2009 accident while operating National's towboat during high Mississippi River flood conditions.
- Deering sued National in Illinois state court under the Jones Act; National counterclaimed for property damage against Deering.
- The district court dismissed National's counterclaim as improper; National filed an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(3).
- National sought to limit liability under 46 U.S.C. § 30501 et seq.; the district court stayed Deering's state-law action and proceedings continued in district court.
- National argued the counterclaim for property damage functioned as a setoff to extinguish Deering's Jones Act claim, potentially amplified by the shipowner's limitation of liability.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal, holding that combining a property-damage counterclaim with limitation of liability constitutes a forbidden device under the Jones Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a property-damage counterclaim against a Jones Act seaman is a forbidden device under FELA §5. | Deering | National | Counterclaim barred as device; setoff not allowed under Jones Act |
| Whether the appeal is jurisdictionally proper under 1292(a)(3) and Rule 59(e). | Deering | National | Jurisdiction proper; timely notice cured by Rule 59(e) motion |
| Whether the limitation-of-liability regime changes the effect of a property-damage counterclaim on a Jones Act claim. | Deering | National | Combination yields liability-exempting device; barred |
| Whether Withhart v. Otto Candies, L.L.C. governs the result here. | Deering | National | Withhart misapplied; broadened concept of 'device' supports barring counterclaim |
Key Cases Cited
- Withhart v. Otto Candies, L.L.C., 431 F.3d 840 (5th Cir. 2005) (counterclaim for property damages not per se a 'device' barred by §5)
- Cavanaugh v. Western Md. Ry., 729 F.2d 289 (4th Cir. 1984) (indemnity/offset theories treated as 'devices' barred by §5)
- Sprague v. Boston & Maine Corp., 769 F.2d 26 (1st Cir. 1985) (followed Cavanaugh on device concept in some contexts)
- Nordgren v. Burlington Northern R.R., 101 F.3d 1246 (8th Cir. 1996) (tension with Cavanaugh on §5 divined scope)
- Stack v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pac. R.R., 94 Wash.2d 155, 615 P.2d 457 (1980) (state-law perspective on indemnity/offset related to §5)
- United States v. Reliable Transfer Co., 421 U.S. 397 (1975) (shift from divided damages to pure comparative negligence in admiralty)
- Philadelphia, Baltimore & Washington R.R. v. Schubert, 224 U.S. 603 (1912) (statutory breadth of 'any contract, rule, regulation, or device whatsoever')