Joseph A. Power, Jr., Arthur H. Bryant, plaintiff Rex Sprietsma, Leslie A. Brueckner, Todd Smith, and Devon Bruce.

Trial Lawyers for Public Justice is now prosecuting its third federal preemption case before the U. S. Supreme Court. On March 29, 2002, TLPJ filed its opening brief in Sprietsma v. Mercury Marine, in which the Court will decide whether an injury victim can sue a boat engine manufacturer under state law for failing to install a propeller guard on the engine of a recreational motor boat. The Illinois Supreme Court previously held that such claims are preempted by the Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971 and by the U.S. Coast Guard's ("USCG's") decision not to take any regulatory action with respect to propeller guards. The U.S. Supreme Court then granted TLPJ's petition for review.

"This issue was before the Supreme Court in a 1997 boat propeller case called Lewis, which settled before the Court ruled," said TLPJ Staff Attorney Leslie Brueckner, who will argue the appeal. "This case presents the opportunity for the Court to resolve this important preemption question once and for all."

The Sprietsma case arose out of the tragic death of Jeanne Sprietsma, who was killed by the propeller of an outboard engine when she fell from a recreational motor boat. Her husband, Rex Sprietsma, sued Mercury Marine for his wife’s wrongful death. Mercury moved to dismiss the no-propeller-guard claim on the ground that it is preempted by the Boat Safety Act and by the USCG’s decision not to regulate propeller guards. The Illinois Supreme Court ultimately upheld the trial court’s decision to grant the motion to dismiss, reasoning that Mr. Sprietsma’s claim would "frustrate" the USCG’s regulatory purposes.

A propeller guard such as this one might save boaters from serious injury or death.

TLPJ’s opening brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, filed on March 29, 2002, demonstrates that there is no express preemption of Sprietsma’s claim because the Boat Safety Act contains a "saving clause" which says that "compliance with [USCG] standards . . . does not relieve a person from liability at common law or under State law." The brief also shows that there is no implied preemption since, contrary to the lower court’s ruling, Sprietsma’s claim would not "frustrate" the USCG’s purposes. In fact, the agency never promulgated any rules with respect to propeller guards, never found the devices to be dangerous, and never gave any indication that claims like Mr. Sprietsma’s should be preempted. Instead, after an internal inquiry into whether to require propeller guards on recreational boats, the agency wrote an informal letter stating that it had decided not to take any regulatory action in this area because there was no "universal" design suitable for all recreational motor boats. Since that time, the agency has continued to study propeller guards and recently proposed a rule that would actually require the use of such devices on houseboats.

TLPJ is not alone in this battle. Amicus briefs in support of TLPJ’s position have been filed by seventeen States and by the Solicitor General of the United States on behalf of the Coast Guard and the U.S. government.

"The United States’ amicus brief confirms that the Coast Guard never found propeller guards to be dangerous and that ‘no propeller guard’ claims are not preempted," said TLPJ Executive Director Arthur H. Bryant, co-counsel in the case. "The Supreme Court needs to make clear that a federal agency’s decision not to take regulatory action does not eliminate injury victims’ rights under state law. Congress did not give the Coast Guard the power to preempt state law just by writing a letter."

TLPJ’s work in Sprietsma is part of its Federal Preemption Project, which has battled efforts by manufacturers of cigarettes, pesticides, medical devices, flammable fabrics, hazardous substances, and other products to avoid accountability through expansion of federal preemption doctrine for 18 years. As part of the Project, TLPJ has previously served as Counsel of Record for plaintiffs in two federal preemption cases before the Supreme Court. In Freightliner Corp. v. Myrick, the Court unanimously rejected preemption of certain "no-anti-lock brake" claims. In Geier v. American Honda Motor Corp., the Court rejected express preemption of all auto design defect claims, but held 5 to 4 that some "no-airbag" claims are impliedly preempted.

Oral argument in Sprietsma is expected to be scheduled for October 2002. In addition to Brueckner and Bryant, plaintiff’s legal team in Sprietsma includes Michael J. Quirk of TLPJ; Joseph A. Power, Jr., Todd A. Smith, and Devon C. Bruce of Chicago’s Power, Rogers & Smith; and John B. Kralovec of Chicago’s Kralovec, Jambois & Schwartz. TLPJ’s briefs and the key amicus briefs in the case will be available on TLPJ’s web site at www.tlpj.org.