Admiralty Law
Fall 2009
Prof. Robertson
Historical Background
A. Generally à Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that the judicial power of the US shall extend to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. Article III, Section 1 vests the judicial power of the US in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. In the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress did ordain and establish such a system of inferior courts consisting of 13 district courts and 3 circuit courts. Section 9 of that Act provides that the district courts shall have exclusive original cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy where the common law is competent to give it.
1. There was debate over what “admiralty and maritime” meant within the Constitution. Some argued that “maritime” was added to the admiralty grant to ensure that the jurisdiction was suitably broad (it would not have been added if it simply meant the same thing as “admiralty”). Others argue that the natural thrust of the term “maritime” was to narrow the grant of jurisdiction to exclude waters that are neither salty nor tidal, thereby excluding rivers and lakes.
B. DeLovio v. Blair (1815)
1. Facts: An action brought in a district court regarding an insurance policy that insured a vessel against losses at sea. The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the PL appealed to the Supreme Court.
2. Supreme Court (Justice Story)
i. He takes an extremely expansive view of the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction
ii. There is no justifiable reason for construing the terms of the constitution in a limited and narrow sense or for imposing upon them the limitations of English statutes (or common law decisions based upon those statutes), which are rarely supported by any consistent principle. The advantages resulting to the commerce and navigation of the US, from a uniformity of rules and decisions in all maritime questions leads the SC to believe that national policy as well as judicial logic require the clause to be construed broadly – So as to embrace all maritime Ks, torts or injuries, or, to embrace those causes that originally and inherently belonged to admiralty before any restrictions.
iii. Contracts of insurance are within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the US (although not exclusively).
iv. NOTES
· Story focuses on the restricted condition of the English admiralty courts from 1789-1840. In 1840, however, Parliament restored much of the “natural” jurisdiction of the English admiralty.
· The opinion lists dramatic limitations of the admiralty jurisdiction we may have inherited from England:
o Limited to actions in rem (against a vessel), therefore excluding actions in personem (against a shipowner, master or other person) à Gone
o Prohibiting the admiralty court from adjudicating matters arising within the body of a county à Gone
o Precluding the admiralty court from hearing cases arising on waters that did not show the influence of the tide à Gone
o To be maritime and therefore within the admiralty jurisdiction, a K must be made at sea and call for performance wholly at sea à Gone
o Excluding the admiralty court from hearing cases involving the building of or sale of a ship à RETAINED for no good reason
C. The Thomas Jefferson (1825)
1. Facts: Suit brought in DC of Kentucky claiming wages earned on a voyage up the Missouri and back down. The trip was a commercial failure, so to sure the employers on state breach of K law would not be fruitful. Instead, the suit is in Rem against the ship (which can be seized and sold). The question is whether the case is within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. The lower court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.
2. Supreme Court
i. Justice Story holds that in cases involving Ks for the hire of a seaman, admiralty never claimed, nor could it claim, jurisdiction unless the service was substantially performed or to be performed upon the sea, or upon waters within the ebb and flow of the tide (he could have said that constitutional admiralty permitted this, even if judicial admiralty did not have jurisdiction over it…Congress does not have to grant all of its judicial power as per the Constitution). Services are considered to be substantially performed on the sea or tidewater even though the commencement or termination of the voyage may happen to be in some place beyond the reach of the tide.
ii. In the present case, the entire voyage (not simply its commencement and termination) was several hundred miles above the ebb and flow of the tide à Therefore, in no just sense can the wages be considered to be earned in a maritime employment.
· If Congress wants to extend the admiralty jurisdiction to these cases, it may do so, but this is not a decision for the Court
D. The Great Lakes Act of 1945
1. Does not say that non-tidal water is part of Admiralty jurisdiction. It says that district courts have the same jurisdiction in certain Great Lakes cases as they do in Admiralty cases and that they should have the same procedures and apply the same substantive law.
2. Gives rise to federal question, diversity and admiralty jurisdiction.
3. Acknowledges that you cannot shoehorn non-tidal waters into Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction for constitutional purposes, but maybe you can create federal question jurisdiction for certain cases involving non-tidal waters (Article III hook) via the Commerce Clause (Article I hook)
E. The Genesee Chief v. Fitzhugh (1851)
1. Facts: Involves a collision on Lake Ontario. The PLs owned a schooner and the DFs were the owners of a propeller, The Genesee Chief. PL was on the way from Ohio to NY when he hit the DFs boat and their ship sunk with its cargo. They claim that the accident was entirely a result of the carelessness and mismanagement of the officers and crew of the Genesee Chief. The DFs claim the opposite. The case is an in rem action in admiralty and was instituted under the Great Lakes Act of 1845 à Holds that the US District Courts should have the same jurisdiction over ships traveling between states on lakes and rivers (drafted by Justice Story). The district court found for the PLs and the circuit court affirmed.
2. Supreme Court
i. The Great Lakes Act contains no regulation of commerce or any provision related to the shipping and navigation on the lakes. It merely confers a new jurisdiction to the district courts. Therefore, Congress, in passing the Act, did not intend to utilize its power to regulate commerce or to derive its authority from that article of the Constitution.
· The extent of the judicial power is carefully defined and limited in the Constitution and Congress cannot enlarge it even to meet the needs of commerce.
ii. If the Act is Constitutional, it must be supported on the grounds that the lakes and navigable waters connecting them are within the scope of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction as known and understood in the US when the Constitution was adopted (there is no tidal limit in the Constitution).
iii. In reality, the Great Lakes are not regular lakes. They are huge, bordered by numerous states and another country, have commerce conducted upon them and contain many of the dangers encountered on the high seas.
· However, there is no tide on the lakes or the waters connecting them, which is the traditional requirement for admiralty and maritime jurisdiction
o This is because traditionally, commerce was only carried on upon public navigable tidewaters
o In England, tidewater and navigable water is synonymous because there is no such body of water as there as in the US (the Great Lakes)
· When the Constitution was adopted, the definition obtained from England made sense since all the navigable waters were tidewaters. This is no longer the case.
iv. If this court follows The Thomas Jefferson, it will be following a decision that was made when the present state of affairs could not be foreseen. In past cases, there was no reason to consider whether the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction extended further in a public navigable water
· A decision that would limit public rivers in the US to tidewaters would be unacceptable. There are thousands of miles of public navigable waters in which there is no tide. There is NO reason to have admiralty and maritime jurisdiction encompass public tidewaters, but not on any other public water used for commercial purposes and foreign trade. The Lakes and the waters connecting them are undoubtedly public waters and they are within the grant of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction in the Constitution of the US (3rd Circuit decision is affirmed).
3. NOTE
i. The Court overruled the Thomas Jefferson to uphold the Constitutionality of the Great Lakes Act. Was this necessary? In the Thomas Jefferson, Justice Story said that Congress was free to reverse the tidewater limitation. This may have meant that the Thomas Jefferson was an interpretation of Section 9 of the 1789 Judiciary Act rather than the meaning of the underlying Constitutional provision.
ii. Decision gives the courts jurisdiction over waters outside of those covered by the Great Lakes Act.
F. The Eagle (1863)
1. Facts: The Eagle was a tugboat towing a brig and a barge and grounded the brig in the Detroit River causing the barge to collide with the brig. The owners of the brig (PL) filed suit in District Court in MI against the Eagle and the barge. The DC held the Eagle liable and exonerated the barge and the Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court heard the case on the limited issue of the lower court’s subject matter jurisdiction.
i. PL claims that the action was not brought within the requirements of the Great Lakes Act so as to give the DC jurisdiction à It was not shown that the vessels were of the burden of 20+ lbs or enrolled and licensed for the coasting trade, or employed, at the time, in the business of commerce and navigation between ports and placed in different st
ect of eliminating commercial maritime activity, no federal interest is served by the exercise of admiralty jurisdiction over events taking place on that body of water, regardless of whether it was initially navigable. No purpose is served by the application of a uniform body of federal law, on waters devoid of trade and commerce, to regulate the activities and resolve the disputes of pleasure boaters.
vii. Just because a kayaker can get out and go around an obstruction (portage) does not render the body of water navigable for admiralty jurisdiction purposes. Navigability requires that that the body of water be capable of supporting commercial maritime activity.
viii. Summary à A waterway at the situs in issue is navigable for jurisdictional purposes if it is presently used, or is presently capable of being used, as an interstate highway for commercial trade or travel in the customary modes of travel on water. Natural and artificial obstructions that effectively prohibit such commerce defeat admiralty jurisdiction.
3. NOTE
i. The court’s statement that navigability during “extraordinarily high water conditions” does not qualify a body of water for admiralty jurisdiction refers to waters on which transportation is normally impossible. Conversely, seasonal nonnavigability does not defeat navigability for admiralty purposes. Bodies of water that freeze in winter do not thereby lose their navigability. Also, drying up in summer does not defeat navigability.
ii. PLs sued under federal admiralty jurisdiction rather than in state court or federal court. They are likely out of towners and the DF motorboat company is likely local so a federal court would have less sympathy for the motorboat company. Additionally, admiralty cases are always hear before the bench so any sympathy a jury may have became a non-issue.
iii. Lady-Bird lake is not within the federal admiralty jurisdiction because, since the dam was built, you cannot get anywhere but to Austin on it.
iv. Review
· Navigable Water – Entails the ability to float to another state. If you can get from where you are to the ocean, then you can get to another state.
· LeBlanc v. Cleveland – Look at where the incident in suit occurred
o Tort – Where the person got hurt
o Contract – After determining the general subject matter, you must determine if it entails getting into a boat and floating to another state
The “Vessel” Issue
A. Stewart v. Dutra Construction Co. (2005)
1. Facts: During the Big Dig, Massachusetts hired Dutra to help extend the MassPike through a tunnel running under south Boston and Boston Harbor to Logan Airport. Dutra owned the world’s largest dredge (the Super Scoop), which is a massive floating platform. It has certain features that are common to seagoing vessels such as a captain and crew, navigational lights, ballast tanks, and a crew dining area. However, it has only limited means of self-propulsion, it travels long distances by tugboat, and it navigates short distances by manipulating its anchors and cables. PL was hired by Dutra to maintain the mechanical systems of the Super Scoop during the dredging of the harbor. When he was injured, the Super Scoop was idle because one of its scows suffered an engine malfunction and the other was at sea. PL sued Dutra in the US District Court for Mass under the Jones Act alleging that he was a seaman injured by Dutra’s negligence. Dutra moved for summary judgment claiming that PL was not a seaman since the Super Scoop was not a vessel for the purposes of the Jones Act. DF pointed to a case which held that “if a barge or other float’s purpose or primary business is not navigation or commerce, then workers assigned to it for its shore business are to be considered seaman only when it is in actual navigation or transit at the time of the PLs injury.” The court granted summary judgment to DF because the Super Scoop’s primary purpose was dredging rather than transportation and because it was stationary at the time of PL’s injury. Court of appeals affirmed.
2. Supreme Court
