Morgan v. Almars Outboards, Inc.
316 F. Supp. 3d 828
D. Del.2018Background
- Lisa Morgan sustained traumatic amputations of two fingers when her hand was caught in a defective gate hinge/pinch point on a 2006 Bentley pontoon boat; the boat had earlier manufacturer recalls and ineffective "ball guards."
- The boat was sold in 2006 by Almars Outboards, an authorized Bentley dealer; Almars contends it never received Bentley recall notices or knew the guards were ineffective.
- Plaintiffs sued Almars under general maritime law for negligence and strict products liability (defective product and failure to warn); Lisa seeks punitive damages; her husband Edward asserts loss of consortium and NIED (the latter later conceded/dismissed).
- Cross-motions for partial summary judgment: court granted summary judgment to Plaintiffs on the existence of a defective, unreasonably dangerous product element; denied summary judgment on causation, failure-to-warn, and other factual issues reserved for jury; denied Defendant's motion to bar punitive damages and loss of consortium.
- Central legal question: whether punitive damages for a passenger and loss-of-consortium for a spouse are available under general maritime law for non-fatal injuries in coastal waters in light of Miles, Townsend, the Jones Act, and related authorities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of punitive damages to passenger under general maritime law | Punitive damages have long been available in maritime negligence/products claims and remain unless Congress clearly displaces them (Townsend governs). | Miles and Jones Act restrict maritime remedies; punitive damages should be limited or barred. | Punitive damages available; Townsend controls and no statute (including Jones Act) displaces them. |
| Availability of spouse's loss of consortium for non-fatal maritime injury | Loss of consortium historically available in maritime law; Townsend/Calhoun support its availability. | Miles and precedent limiting remedies for seamen suggest limiting loss-of-consortium recovery. | Loss of consortium allowed; historical maritime practice and Townsend support recovery and Jones Act does not bar it. |
| Interaction of common-law maritime remedies with Jones Act passenger provision | Common-law remedies predate or coexist with statutory provisions; Congress did not clearly abrogate remedies. | The Jones Act (and incorporated FELA limits for seamen) demonstrate congressional intent to limit non-pecuniary remedies. | Jones Act passenger provision does not displace traditional maritime remedies; FELA limits apply to seamen only and do not logically constrain passengers. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for punitive damages on summary judgment | Evidence (recalls, dealer notices, sales rep contact) permits a jury to find Almars knew or should have known of the defect and acted with gross negligence/reckless indifference. | Almars asserts no evidence it received recalls or knew of defect; punitive claim should be dismissed. | Punitive claim survives summary judgment; credibility and knowledge are factual questions for the jury. |
Key Cases Cited
- Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend, 557 U.S. 404 (2009) (establishes two-step framework: (1) is the maritime cause/remedy historically available; (2) has Congress displaced it)
- Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U.S. 19 (1990) (limited wrongful-death maritime damages to align with statutory scheme, showing when courts harmonize common law with Congress)
- Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471 (2008) (recognizes availability of punitive damages in maritime negligence and discusses standards for punitive relief)
- E. River S.S. Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval Inc., 476 U.S. 858 (1986) (recognizes strict products liability principles apply in maritime law)
- Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A. v. Calhoun, 516 U.S. 199 (1996) (federal admiralty jurisdiction does not automatically displace state remedial rules; state remedies may supplement maritime liability where Congress is silent)
- Sea-Land Servs., Inc. v. Gaudet, 414 U.S. 573 (1974) (recognizes loss-of-consortium-type recoveries in maritime wrongful-death contexts)
- Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corp. v. Garris, 532 U.S. 811 (2001) (confirms that Jones Act presence does not automatically eliminate nonstatutory maritime remedies)