Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC635250    Hearing Date: November 08, 2019    Dept: 37

HEARING DATE: November 8, 2019

CASE NUMBER: BC635250

TRIAL DATE: August 4, 2020

CASE NAME: Michael Thabet, et al. v. Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A., et al.

SUBJECT: Motion to Determine Applicable Law

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A.

OPPOSING PARTY: Plaintiffs, Michael Thabet, et al.

MOTION: filed July 17, 2019

OPPOSITION: filed October 28, 2019

REPLY: filed November 1, 2019

TENTATIVE: The court GRANTS YMUS’s motion and determines that maritime law is applicable to the instant action. The court notes further finds that Plaintiffs are not precluded from seeking applicable state law remedies.

BACKGROUND

This case arises out of a watercraft versus watercraft collision which occurred on May 25, 2015 near Big Bend State Park in Laughlin, Arizona. In connection with this collision, Plaintiffs, Michael Thabet , Kathy Thabet and George Thabet as successors in interest to Magdy Thabet (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A. (“YMUS”), Yamaha Motor Company, LTD (“YMLTD”), Watercraft Adventures Rentals, LLC (“Watercraft”), Harrah Laughlin, LLC (“Harrah”), John Envieh (“Envieh”), an individual, and does 1-100 (“Defendants”), alleging causes of action for (1) product liability, (2) negligence, (3) breach of warranty, (4) failure to warn and (5) survival action.

During this collision, defendant Envieh was allegedly driving a Yamaha watercraft behind Plaintiff, Michael Thabet’s watercraft. Decedent, Magdy Thabet, was Plaintiff’s passenger. The subject watercraft defendant drove was owned by defendant, Watercraft. Plaintiffs allege that defendant Envieh turned off the engine when he realized that Plaintiff Michael Thabet had come to a stop, but that the watercraft allegedly lost steering when the engine turned off. As a result, defendant Envieh allegedly collided into Plaintiff Thabet’s watercraft in such a way that his vehicle crushed decedent Magdy Thabet, causing her death. Plaintiffs further allege that the YMUS and YMLTD are liable for this incident because they manufactured the watercraft in such a way that it was unreasonably dangerous and defective.

On July 17, 2019 YMUS filed the instant motion. On October 24, 2019, the court granted YMUS’ ex-parte application to advance its hearing on this motion, setting the hearing date for November 8, 2019.

MOTION TO DETERMINE APPLICABLE LAW

I. Legal Standard

Cases that involve a watercraft collision on navigable waters fall within admiralty law’s domain. (Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A. v. Calhoun (1996) 516 U.S. 199, 206 (Calhoun).) “With admiralty jurisdiction” often “comes the application of substantive admiralty law.” (East River S.S. Corp. v. Transmaerica Delaval Inc. (1986) 476 U.S. 858, 864.) However, state law is not automatically displaced if admiralty law is applied. (Calhoun, supra, at p. 206.)

Both parties cites Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A. v. Calhoun in their moving papers. In Yamaha, respondents were the parents of a child who was killed in a watercraft collision in navigable waters off Puerto Rico. (Id. at 199.) Respondents filed their action against Yamaha, invoking Pennsylvania’s wrongful death and survival statutes. (Id.) The district court granted Yamaha’s request to apply federal maritime law, to the exclusion of state law. (Id.) Although the third circuit granted interlocutory review, it did not resolve the questions presented but instead, held that state remedies have not been displaced by federal maritime law. (Id.)

In general, state wrongful death statutes provided an adequate supplement to federal maritime law. (Id. at 207-208.) However, the Supreme Court in Calhoun noted that the doctrine of “unseaworthiness” developed over the last decade to expand a shipowner’s liability to injured seamen by imposing upon them a nondelegable duty to furnish a seaworthy vehicle. (Id. at 208). Specifically, the Supreme Court reexamined its decision in Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc., and came to the conclusion that while Moragne expressed concerns about creating a uniform federal scheme for maritime cases, it did not actually hold that state law remedies can no longer apply. (Id. at 209-211.) In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that Plaintiffs’ damages for the watercraft death of their decedent are properly governed by state law. (Id. at 216.)

1. Analysis

YMUS argues that maritime law should apply because the subject watercraft collision occurred on the Colorado River, a federal navigable waterway. (Motion, 3.) YMUS further argues that Supreme Court precedent requires application of maritime law to collisions of recreational vehicles on navigable waterways because such collisions “could lead to restrictions on the navigable use of the waterway.” (Motion, 6.) Finally, YMUS argues that California tort law cannot supplant maritime law (Motion, 8-12.)

In opposition, Plaintiffs contend that Supreme Court precedent has already held that state law applies to watercraft wrongful death actions, whether or not they occurred on navigable waters. (Opposition, 2-3.) Plaintiffs cite Yamaha v. Calhoun (1996) 516 U.S. 199 in support of their proposition. Plaintiffs’ opposition then contends that Yamaha’s motion to determine whether maritime law is an attempt to avoid remedies provided by California state law. (see Opposition, 4-5.)

YMUS contends on reply that Plaintiffs Opposition fails to note the distinction between applying maritime law to determining liability and to determining remedies. (Reply, 2-3.) Specifically, YMUS contends that because Plaintiffs opposition focuses on discussions of damages, it admits that maritime law applies as to liabilities. (Id.) Finally, YMUS contends that Plaintiffs’ remaining arguments are not applicable to the issue at hand of determining application of law. (Reply, 3-5.)

Here, the court finds that admiralty law should apply to Plaintiffs’ action against YMUS because the alleged collision occurred on a navigable waterway. Plaintiffs allege in the Complaint that the collision occurred “near Big Bend State Park in Laughlin, Arizona.” (Complaint, ¶ 14.) YMUs contends that the Colorado River is a navigable waterway and Plaintiffs do not dispute this contention. Further, the court is not aware of any facts or law to support the proposition that the Colorado River is not a navigable waterway.

As to the remaining arguments in Plaintiffs’ opposition, the court finds them inapposite to the choice of law issue. Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s holding in Calhoun, Plaintiffs may still seek California law wrongful death remedies yet have the liability as to YMUS determined under applicable maritime law. Accordingly, because the Supreme Court has found no conflict between applying state law remedies to admiralty law claims, the court hereby grants YMUS’ motion.

C. Conclusion

Given the foregoing, the court GRANTS YMUS’s motion and determines that maritime law is applicable to the instant action. The court further finds that Plaintiffs are not precluded from seeking applicable state law remedies.