Skip to main content

Florida Judgment in Favor of NMMA


The Daily Business Review reports that Florida's Third District Court of Appeals in a ruling dated December 19th affirmed  a summary final judgment in favor of the National Marine Manufacturers Association.

The recreational boat industry trade group, a participant in the 2008 Miami International Boat Show, parked several tractor trailers on a lot owned by the city of Miami Beach under a temporary license and use agreement signed with the city's housing authority. On February 7, 2008, David Collins entered the lot, climbed under a parked trailer and fell asleep. A truck driver for the association, who didn't know anyone was under the trailer, hitched it to his truck and pulled out, running over and fatally injuring Collins.

Collins' mother, Constance Ryan, sued the trade group and the truck driver, alleging he was negligent in failing to "check around and under the tractor-trailer so as to avoid striking a pedestrian in the vicinity." However, a toxicology report determined Collins' blood alcohol level was 0.21, nearly three times the legal limit for drivers. That finding triggered a winning defense.

Under Florida law, anyone "owning or controlling an interest in real property" cannot be held liable for injuries to a trespasser who was legally under the influence of alcohol. The question was: Did the association have an owning or controlling interest? Ryan contended it did not because the agreement with the city was nominally a license. The association asserted it did because the intent of the agreement made it effectively a lease.

"Our argument was that although it was labeled a license, the essence of the document and what they [the housing authority] purported to do was to grant a short-term lease to National Marine," said Rafael De la Grana, who worked on the appellate brief with James K. Clark of Clark, Robb, Mason, Coulombe & Buschman in Miami. "It therefore was entitled to avail itself of the immunity given by the statute."

Miami-Dade Circuit Judge David C. Miller agreed and ruled for National Marine. On appeal, Emas, who wrote the opinion, Salter and Senior Judge Alan Schwartz affirmed. In a special concurrence, Schwartz wrote: "On the ground that as a matter of law, no one is liable for the accident but the decedent, I join in affirmance."

If you are unable to access the opinion here or wish to reach me for any reason, you may do so by writing to me at mov@chaloslaw.com.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Maritime Law--Florida's Arbitration Code Is Now Revised

Those of us that practice maritime law regularly must always be on the lookout for the contract that may contain an arbitration clause. Thus, any laws related to arbitration are important to those of us practicing in this sector.       The Florida legislature has revised the Florida Arbitration Code ("FAC") and named it the Revised Florida Arbitration Code (the " Revised Act"). Since 1967, the FAC had gone mostly unchanged. The Revised Act addresses concepts that were not addressed in the old law, such as the ability of arbitrators to issue provision remedies, challenges based on notice, consolidation of separate arbitration proceedings, required conflict disclosures by arbitrators, among other major changes. The Revised Act lays out a detailed framework for international arbitration conducted under Florida law and repeals sections of the FAC. The Revised Act spells out what experienced arbitrators knew the case law to be, but codifies it all in one pl...
4 comments
Read more

Maritime Law--Lozman Case Revisited in Miami?

In Hoefling v. City of Miami , Case no.: 14-12482 (11th Cir. Jan. 25, 2016), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit revived almost all of Hoefling's claims. You ask, "Who is Hoefling?" Hoefling  lived on his sailboat Metis O moored off Dinner Key for nearly a decade—until the day he came home and it was gone. About three months earlier, an officer from the Miami Police Department's Marine Patrol Detail tagged Hoefling's vessel for lacking a sanitary device and a working anchor light. He had a deal to use the facilities at the nearby marina but quickly went out and reportedly bought what he needed to comply. Three months later while he was on a business trip, the City of Miami seized and destroyed his boat and all his belongings. As a result, he was homeless. He sued under § 1983, maritime law, and state law. He stated a claim under the Fourth Amendment for seizure and destruction without notice or cause and a “taking.”    At the ...
5 comments
Read more

Maritime Law--Novel Rule B Attachment Rejected by Eleventh Circuit

In World Wide Supply OU v. Quail Cruises Ship Management , Case No. 14-14838 (11th Cir. Sept. 30, 2015), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order vacating an attachment of legal settlement funds.  At issue in this appeal was an attachment of property made pursuant to Supplemental Admiralty Rule B. This appeal had a complicated background, involving multiple lawsuits in federal district courts, Florida state court, and a Spanish bankruptcy court. The common denominator of these suits was Quail Cruises Ship Management, from which multiple parties, including participants in the appeal, tried to collect money that they believed Quail owed them. This is not surprising, as there have been numerous cases against Quail due to a failed cruise venture they operated. The money at issue arose from the legal settlement of a dispute over the purchase of a cruise ship featured on ABC Television Network’s long-running series, The Love Boat. The ...
5 comments
Read more