ALLEN FORDHAM AND WILLIE HIGHTOWER, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
BELCHER TOWING COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the three-year statute of limitations in 46 U.S.C.A. § 763a does not apply retroactively to claims that accrued before its enactment.
Plaintiffs were injured in 1978 and sued in 1982. The district court dismissed their claim, finding it barred by the three-year statute of limitations…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Analogous State Statute Of Limitations cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The district court held that 46 U.S.C.A. § 763a, which provides that a suit for recovery of damages for personal injury or death arising out of a maritime tort must be commenced within three years from the date the cause of action accrued, barred this claim which had accrued before the statute was enacted on October 6, 1980. We reverse.
Allen Fordham and Willie Hightower were injured while working as stevedores on the M/V Pan Atlantic on November 16, 1978. On August 11,1982, they sued Belch-er Towing Company in federal court, alleging that the company had negligently used its tugboats to pull the ships from the docks. The district court dismissed the claim, holding that it was barred by the three-year statute of limitations in 46 U.S. C.A. § 763a.
Statutes generally operate prospectively only, in the absence of a clear statement to the contrary by the legislature. Miller v. United States, 294 U.S. 435, 439, 55 S.Ct. 440, 441, 79 L.Ed. 977 (1935). In Miller, a 1930 regulation did not apply to an action filed in 1932 where the cause of action had accrued in 1918. 46 U.S.C.A. § 763a contains no effective date and no suggestion that it should cut off claims which had accrued before its enactment. Therefore, it does not apply to the claims of Fordham and Hightower, which accrued at the time of the accident on November 16, 1978. Gribshaw v. Ohio Barge Lines, Inc., 532 F.Supp. 866, 867 (W.D.Pa.1982) (46 U.S. C.A. § 763a did not apply where cause of action accrued in 1978, but suit was not filed until more than three years after accident). See Nealy v. Fluor Drilling Service, Inc., 524 F.Supp. 789, 794 n. 1 (W.D.La. 1981) (statute did not apply where both the accident and the filing of suit occurred before 46 U.S.C.A. § 763a was enacted); Belmonte v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co., Ltd., 523 F.Supp. 530, 531 n. 1 (S.D.N.Y. 1981); Bush v. Sumitomo Bank & Trust Co., Ltd., 513 F.Supp. 1051, 1054-55 (E.D.Tex. 1981). Cf. Doran v. Compton,'645 F. 2d 440 (5th Cir.1981) (1974 statute of limitations did not apply to medical malpractice claims arising from acts in 1969-1973); Watkins v. Barber-Colman Co., Inc., 625 F. 2d 714 (5th Cir.1980) (Georgia statute did not apply where injury occurred prior to effective date of statute even though action was filed after statute became effective).
Prior to the enactment of 46 U.S.C.A. § 763a, there was no absolute cutoff date for the bringing of suits such as this. Courts applied the doctrine of laches, using the analogous statute of limitations to determine which party had the burden of proving or disproving inexcusable delay and resulting prejudice. Barrios v. Nelda Faye, Inc., 597 F. 2d 881, 884 (5th Cir.1979). Because laches is an equitable doctrine, the analogous limitations period may not be mechanically applied. Czaplicki v. The S.S. Hoegh Silvercloud, 351 U.S. 525, 76 S.Ct. 946, 100 L.Ed. 1387 (1956); Bush v. Oceans International, 621 F. 2d 207, 211 n. 3 (5th Cir.1980).
The dismissal of the suit on the basis of 46 U.S.C.A. § 763a is reversed, and the case is remanded to the district court for determination of whether it is time-barred in accordance with the law of laches which applied at the time this action accrued.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Clauson v. Smith, 823 F.2d 660 (1st Cir. 1987)…address — as to whether the equitable doctrine of laches or the provisions of 46 U.S.C. § 763a, enacted October 6, 1980 (after Clauson’s injury occurred), would govern such a question on the facts of this case. Compare Fordham v. Belcher Towing Co., 710 F. 2d 709, 710-11 (11th Cir.1983) (per curiam) (law of laches applies; § 763a cannot cut off claims which accrued before its enactment) with Cooper v. Diamond M Co., 799 F. 2d 176, 178 & n. 2 (5th Cir.1986) (holding contra), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 107 S.Ct. 2…
-
Friel v. The Cessna Aircraft Co., 751 F.2d 1037 (9th Cir. 1985)…taining any proper action or prosecution for the enforcement of such penalty, forfeiture, or liability.” . Appellants point to several cases where the court refused to give § 763a retrospective application. See, e.g., Fordham v. Belcher Towing Co., 710 F. 2d 709, 710 (11th Cir.1983). These cases dealt with whether § 763a could be used to cut off actions which were otherwise viable under the doctrine of laches. These are exactly the "substantive rights" a court must look to in determining whether to apply a…
-
Am. Ass'n OF Christian Schs. Voluntary Emps. Beneficiary Ass'n Welf. Plan Tr. v. United States, 850 F.2d 1510 (11th Cir. 1988)…mber 31, 1985.” H.R. Conf.Rep. No. 841, 99th Cong., 2d Sess., 11-346, reprinted in 1986 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin. News 4075, 4434. Therefore, since statutes are not applied retroactively absent a clear statutory mandate, Fordham v. Belcher Towing Co., 710 F. 2d 709, 710 (11th Cir.1983) (per curiam), Section 501(m) does not apply here. B. Section 501(c)(4) Section 501(c)(4) exempts from federal income taxes “[cjivic leagues or orga [*1516] nizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the pr…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Miller v. United States, 294 U.S. 435 (U.S. 1935)
- Czaplicki v. The Hoegh Silvercloud, 351 U.S. 525 (U.S. 1956)
- Barrois v. Nelda Faye, Inc., 597 F.2d 881 (5th Cir. 1979)
- Ennis Bush v. Oceans Int'l, 621 F.2d 207 (5th Cir. 1980)
- Doran v. Compton, 645 F.2d 440 (5th Cir. 1981)
- Watkins v. Barber-Colman Co., Inc., 625 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1980)