William Ehart, Jr. v. Lahaina Divers, Inc.
92 F.4th 844
9th Cir.2024Background
- Plaintiffs (the Eharts) participated in a chartered scuba/snorkel tour from Lahaina Harbor (Maui) to Molokini Crater and back, operated by Lahaina Divers, Inc.
- Prior to the tour, both signed liability waivers releasing Lahaina Divers from claims for personal injury/wrongful death, including negligence.
- Maureen Ehart, one of the plaintiffs, went missing and was presumed dead after drifting away while snorkeling; subsequent searches were unsuccessful.
- Plaintiff (her husband) filed a wrongful death and negligence suit, and Lahaina Divers asserted the signed waivers as an affirmative defense.
- The district court struck the waiver defense, relying on 46 U.S.C. § 30527(a), which prohibits contractual negligence waivers for vessels "transporting passengers between ports in the United States."
- Defendants appealed, challenging whether the statute applies to round-trip excursions that begin and end at the same port without stopping at another port.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 46 U.S.C. § 30527(a) voids liability waivers for a vessel that only departs from and returns to a single U.S. port, with no intermediate stops at another port | The statute applies because the excursion involved transport "between ports" by leaving from and returning to Lahaina Harbor | The statute does not apply because the vessel did not transport passengers between two different ports, only from and back to the same port | The statute does not apply; "between ports" means at least two distinct ports |
| Whether the Hawaii state statute (HRS § 663–1.54) separately voids the liability waiver | Waiver is void under HRS § 663–1.54 | The waiver is not void; factual disputes remain as to the requirements of HRS § 663–1.54 | Did not decide; held that factual issues prevent granting summary judgment under Hawaii law |
| Whether interlocutory appellate jurisdiction existed under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(3) | District court’s order is not immediately appealable | Jurisdiction exists because striking the defense effectively determines party rights/liabilities | Jurisdiction upheld under Ninth Circuit precedent |
| Whether Molokini Crater is a “port” under the statute | Molokini is a port due to the presence of mooring buoys and passenger activity | Molokini is not a port; "port" requires a loading/unloading point on land, not just a water mooring | Molokini is not a port as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Doe, 136 F.3d 631 (9th Cir. 1998) (de novo standard for statutory interpretation)
- El Pollo Loco, Inc. v. Hashim, 316 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2003) (review of motion to strike standard)
- In re Hanford Nuclear Rsrv. Litig., 534 F.3d 986 (9th Cir. 2008) (review of legal rulings on affirmative defense applicability)
- Wallis v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 306 F.3d 827 (9th Cir. 2002) (appellate jurisdiction in maritime contract limitation cases)
- Liverpool & G.W. Steam Co. v. Phenix Ins. Co., 129 U.S. 397 (1889) (public policy against contractual waivers by common carriers)
- New York Cent. R.R. Co. v. Lockwood, 84 U.S. 357 (1873) (common carriers cannot contract away negligence liability)
- Sante Fe, Prescott & Phoenix Ry. Co. v. Grant Bros. Constr. Co., 228 U.S. 177 (1913) (enforceability of liability waivers in special carriage contexts)