Bournias v. Atlantic Maritime Co.
220 F.2d 152 (1955)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A foreign statute of limitations is considered procedural and will not be applied by a forum court unless it was directed to the newly created liability so specifically as to warrant saying that it qualified the right itself. A general limitations period contained within a broad foreign statutory scheme, like a labor code, is considered procedural.
Facts:
- A seaman (libelant) was employed on a vessel owned by the respondents.
- During his employment, the vessel's registry was changed from Panamanian to Honduran.
- Under the Panama Labor Code, this change of registry entitled the seaman to certain payments, including three months' extra wages.
- The seaman's employment with the respondents terminated on December 27, 1950.
- The Panama Labor Code, in Article 623, established a one-year period of limitations for actions arising from labor contracts.
- The seaman did not file his libel (lawsuit) until December 29, 1952, more than a year after his employment ended.
Procedural Posture:
- The libelant (seaman) filed a libel in a U.S. federal admiralty court against the respondents (vessel owners).
- The respondents filed exceptive allegations, arguing the action was barred by the one-year statute of limitations in Article 623 of the Panama Labor Code.
- The trial court held that the Panama statute of limitations was controlling and barred the libelant's claims.
- The trial court entered a ruling in favor of the respondents on this issue.
- The libelant appealed the trial court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a general one-year statute of limitations contained within Panama's comprehensive labor code qualify as substantive law that extinguishes the right itself, thereby requiring a U.S. admiralty court to apply it and bar a claim brought after the one-year period expired?
Opinions:
Majority - Harlan, Circuit Judge.
No. A general one-year statute of limitations within a comprehensive foreign labor code is not considered substantive law that extinguishes the right itself, and a U.S. admiralty court will therefore treat it as procedural. Under the conflict-of-laws doctrine, a forum applies foreign substantive law but its own procedural rules, and statutes of limitations are generally classified as procedural. An exception exists where the foreign limitation is 'substantive,' meaning it conditions the right and not merely the remedy. The court rejects several tests for this determination and adopts the 'specificity' test from Davis v. Mills: 'Was the limitation directed to the newly created liability so specifically as to warrant saying that it qualified the right?' Here, Article 623 of the Panama Labor Code is a broad statute of limitations applying to numerous rights created by the code, not one specifically targeted at the seaman's claim. Because it lacks the required specificity, it is deemed procedural and does not apply. The forum's own timeliness rules (the doctrine of laches in admiralty) govern the case.
Analysis:
This decision establishes the 'specificity' test in the Second Circuit as the primary method for determining whether a foreign statute of limitations is substantive or procedural. It shifts the analysis away from more rigid, formalistic tests, such as whether the right and limitation are in the same statutory text. The ruling makes it more difficult for defendants to use general foreign statutes of limitations to dismiss claims brought in U.S. courts, thereby favoring a forum's own rules on timeliness unless the foreign limitation is inextricably linked to the right itself. This approach provides a more functional, albeit less certain, framework that requires a case-by-case examination of the scope and intent of the foreign law.
