|
 |
Silence is Golden, but it Doesn't Preempt State Tort Actions
Sprietsma v. Mercury Marine A unanimous Court has ruled that the Federal Boat and Safety Act and certain U.S. Coast Guard decisions under that act do not preempt state tort action—here, a tort suit predicated on the notion that the manufacturer’s failure to install a propeller safeguard constitutes a product design defect. Justice Stevens' opinion for the Court is straightforward. First, the FBSA has an express preemption clause, but the clause refers to positive state laws and regulations, not common law actions. Second, the Coast Guard’s 1990 decision not to require propeller safeguards does not preempt the instant tort suit, either; we know this because the Solicitor General said so in his briefs. Third, the FBSA was not intended to occupy the regulatory field but merely to complement to state action, especially common law actions. The opinion glosses over the legal complications and, amazingly, shows not the slightest recognition that we have a tort crisis in this country. For example, the decision means that manufacturers can be sued over a failure to install propeller guards and—since the contraptions can cause as well as prevent injuries—over installing the devices. These things can happen simultaneously, in different state jurisdictions. This is not your grandfather’s federalism; it’s the trial lawyers’.
|
||||||||||||||
Click