Find Answers To Your Questions By Searching Here:

Florida sunken boat ruling significant in determining admiralty venues

Imagine taking your boat to get the motor fixed only to learn it sank due to the repairer’s dishonesty and negligence. Worse, his attorneys try to deny you compensation because the contract wasn't in writing and because your boat wasn't really a vessel.

This is what one Florida recreational boat owner claims in his lawsuit over his sunken boat as reported in Maritime Law Blog.com.

In a case that may have wide ranging applications for determining admiralty law venues, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida recently sided with the owner in ruling that a Federal Court is an appropriate venue for the breach of warranty of workmanlike performance implied in an oral repair contract.

According to the lawsuit, in December 2009 the owner entered into an oral agreement with a local repairer to fix the starboard engine of a 33’ Chris-Craft Sportfish called the CJ which was moored at Worldwide Sportsman Marina in Tavernier, Fl. The CJ was connected to shore power. The repairs began there, but then the repairer asked the owner if the boat could be moved to a dock behind his house for convenience. The owner consented.

However, the repairer instead moved the boat without consent to a berth at his neighbor’s house. After shifting the boat, the repairer did not re-connect to shore power.

Water leaked through the drive shaft packing gland. The bilge pumps controlled the incoming water until the battery died. The boat sank. Damage resulted to the machinery, hull and owner’s personal belongings.

The owner filed a complaint for damages against the repairer in the Southern District of Florida federal court for breach of warranty and breach of marine bailment.

The defendant moved for dismissal on two grounds:

1) That the federal court did not have authority to hear the case under admiralty law, arguing that the CJ was not in fact a vessel because it was not “capable of being used as a means of transportation” at the time of the incident.

In other words, the defendant made the rather audacious claim that the boat was not a vessel due to his own actions (by not re-connecting the power supply).The plaintiff successfully argued that when the contract was entered into the vessel was floating at its berth and the repairer even shifted the vessel under its own power. Thus, the Court agreed that the boat was a vessel.

2) That the owner, which was a corporation, never stated the claim for breach of workmanlike performance because it did not plead that its agent entered the contract on its behalf nor was the contract put in writing.

The Court rejected the argument, holding that there was no obligation to plead neither an agent nor a requirement for a repair contract to be entered in writing in order to make a breach of workmanlike performance claim.

This ruling by the Southern District of Florida has significance for the purposes of more clearly defining what a vessel is under admiralty law and for the authority of an oral contract for breach of implied warranty of workmanlike performance.

Learn your rights as a seaman by ordering free copy of The Insider's Guide to Winning Your Maritime Injury Case written by Jones Act and maritime accident injury lawyer Brian Beckcom.

Maritime Work is Dangerous

Our maritime lawyers realize that maritime work can be dangerous when companies cut corners on safety. That's why we've dedicated our time to putting out free information for workers.