New Jersey Court Holds Husband May Recover Loss of Consortium Damages Under General Maritime Law for Wife Injured on Jet-Ski
By Ashley Bossier
Robertson v. Hynson, No. 18-13391, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141714, 2021 WL 3206784 (D.N.J. July 29, 2021).
On July 29, 2021, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, in the above captioned case, held that the husband of the operator of a jet-ski may recover loss of consortium damages under General Maritime Law supplemented by state law.
Deanna Robertson was operating a jet-ski when she collided with defendant, Scott Hynson’s vessel. She and her husband Bryan Robertson brought suit claiming damages for personal injury, his loss of consortium, and for loss of use to the jet-ski.
Defendant removed the case from New Jersey state court to federal court on the sole basis of admiralty jurisdiction. (Counsel for plaintiffs did not move to remand on the basis that removal was improper.) Defendant then moved for partial summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ claim for loss of consortium and loss of use and damage to the jet-ski.
The court denied the partial motion for summary judgment as to the plaintiffs’ loss of consortium claim and held that because the facts of this case almost mirror the facts in Yamaha Motor Corp. v. Calhoun,[1] Plaintiff, Bryan Robertson, should be able to proceed with his loss of consortium claim. In Yamaha, a twelve-year-old girl was killed while riding a jet ski in Puerto Rico. The Supreme Court held that the family of the little girl, a non-seaman, could move forward with a state law claim for damages even though the case fell “within admiralty’s domain.” Since the Court ruled on Yamaha, it has not clarified its rulings.
The District Court for the District of New Jersey also examined case law from other district courts. Several of these other jurisdictions have allowed similar claims to proceed. The most notable was Morgan v. Almars Outboards, Inc.[2] from the District of Delaware. The court in Morgan held that loss of consortium damages are available to non-seamen under general maritime law. In Morgan, the court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Atlantic Sounding Co., Inc. v. Townsend.[3] Notably, the Morgan opinion predates subsequent Supreme Court precedent, specifically Dutra Group v. Batterton[4]in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that punitive damages may not be recovered by seamen or their beneficiaries and substantially restricts the Townsend holding. Nonetheless, consistent with Yamaha, state law may supplement general maritime law.
In addition, the trial judge distinguished jurisprudence of the District Court of New Jersey cited by the defendant[5] which denied recovery for loss of consortium damages under General Maritime Law. Thus, the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment to dismiss the husband’s claim for loss of consortium was denied.
On the other hand, the court granted defendant’s partial motion for summary judgment as to the plaintiffs’ claim of loss of use and damages to the jet-ski. The trial judge agreed that plaintiffs did not provide sufficient evidence of damages to the jet ski or the cost of repair. Finally, the court granted the defendant’s partial motion for summary judgement as to the loss of use, citing Cent. State Transit & Leasing Corp. v. Jones Boat Yard, Inc.[6]
[1] Yamaha Motor Corp. v. Calhoun, 516 U.S. 199 (1996).
[2] 316 F. Supp. 3d 828, 838 (D. Del. 2018).
[3] Atlantic Sounding Co., Inc. v. Townsend, 557 U.S. 404 (2009).
[4] 139 S. Ct. 2275, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 4202, 2019 WL 2570621 (2019).
[5] See Lieberman v. Carnival Cruise Lines, No. 13-cv-4716(JLL)(JAD), 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153535, 2015 WL 7069654 (D.N.J. Nov. 13, 2015); Siegel v. Norweigan Cruise Line, No. 00-cv-6271, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24309, 2001 WL 1905983 (D.N.J. May 14, 2001).
[6] 206 F.3d 1373, 1376 (11th Cir. 2000).
