In Re Everglades Island Boat Tours, LLC

Citations: 484 F. Supp. 2d 1259; 2007 A.M.C. 1440; 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29618; 2007 WL 1200961Docket: 8:06-cr-00225

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida; April 23, 2007; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Everglades Island Boat Tours, LLC, as the owner of a 2004 airboat, filed a Complaint for Exoneration From or Limitation of Liability following an incident on December 19, 2005, in which passenger Jonell Modys was allegedly injured during a sightseeing tour in Collier County, Florida. The complaint was submitted on May 3, 2006, under 46 U.S.C. 181 et seq., and after procedural filings, the claimants, Jonell and Robert Modys, included a claim for loss of companionship/consortium.

The petitioner, Everglades, seeks to strike this claim, asserting that federal admiralty law does not recognize loss of consortium claims. The claimants counter that the case should be dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction, arguing the accident did not occur in navigable waters and that the airboat does not meet the definition of a vessel under 46 U.S.C. 183(a).

The court outlines that federal courts possess limited jurisdiction, requiring a clear source of jurisdiction to proceed. Federal admiralty jurisdiction arises from Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution and is implemented through 28 U.S.C. 1333(1). To establish federal admiralty jurisdiction for a tort claim, two conditions must be met: (1) the tort must have occurred on navigable waters or an injury on land must be caused by a vessel on navigable waters, and (2) the incident must have a potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce and demonstrate a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity, referencing relevant case law.

Claimants request judicial notice of information from sfwmd.gov regarding Everglades Wetlands management, which the Court grants despite objections. The incident in question occurred on private property within the Florida Everglades, with claimants asserting that Jonell Modys was ejected from an airboat upon striking dry land, asserting that the area is not 'navigable waters' due to its seasonal dryness. The Court disagrees, noting that 'navigable waters' lacks a precise definition and referencing the Supreme Court's interpretation that navigability is based on actual use for commerce rather than seasonal conditions. The Court concludes that the petitioner has established admiralty jurisdiction, emphasizing that periodic dryness does not negate navigability. Evidence presented includes an affidavit from airboat operator William Anderson, confirming the location of the accident within navigable waterways connected to the Gulf of Mexico. The Court finds that both locality and nexus tests for maritime jurisdiction are met, and dismisses claimants' cited cases as unpersuasive.

In Bridges, the court determined that an accident on a landlocked pathway navigable only by airboats did not permit access to other water bodies, rendering interstate commerce impossible. Consequently, the use of airboats alone was deemed insufficient to establish a connection with interstate commerce. In contrast, the current case involves the Big Bay, which connects to interstate waterways accessible to residents and visitors, thus satisfying the criteria for maritime commerce. The court clarified that maritime jurisdiction does not exclude wetlands from consideration as navigable waters, provided other conditions relating to location and maritime activity are met.

Claimants’ assertion that an airboat is not a vessel under 46 U.S.C.App. 183 is countered by the broad statutory definition of 'vessel,' which includes all forms of watercraft capable of transportation on water. The court cites precedent affirming that airboats qualify as vessels.

Regarding the claim for loss of companionship or consortium, the court affirmed the existence of admiralty jurisdiction and the applicability of federal maritime law, which does not recognize such claims in personal injury cases, as established in Lollie v. Brown Marine Serv. The court ordered the dismissal of the claim for loss of companionship/consortium and granted the claimants' request for judicial notice of publications regarding the Everglades.

The statute has been amended and recodified at 46 U.S.C. 30501 et seq. A motion labeled as a motion to strike is treated as a motion to dismiss a claim, applying the standard for dismissals. A complaint should not be dismissed unless it is evident that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts that would warrant relief, referencing Conley v. Gibson and Marsh v. Butler County. According to FED. R. Civ. P. 8, a complaint must provide the defendant with fair notice of the claim and its grounds, as established in Swierkiewicz v. Sorema NA. In cases involving a Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal regarding subject matter jurisdiction, courts may consider external facts like testimonies and affidavits, provided these do not affect the merits of the plaintiff's case, as noted in Morrison v. Amway Corp. and Goodman v. Sipos. Additionally, a definition acknowledged by claimants is deemed contrary to legislative intent.