Admiralty Jurisdiction

Over the years, the United States Supreme Court has developed two tests to determine whether a particular action is governed by admiralty law. Under the first test, known as the "locality" test, "[e]very species of tort, however occurring, and whether on board a vessel or not, if upon the high seas or navigable waters, is of admiralty cognizance." (Lewinter v. Genmar Industries, Inc.(1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1214, 1218 citing The Plymouth (1866) 70 U.S. (3 Wall.) 20, 36 .)

Dissatisfied with the all-encompassing approach of the locality test, the United States Supreme Court set forth an additional test which must be met in order to invoke admiralty jurisdiction. Under this test, known as the "nexus" test, "the wrong [complained of must] bear a significant relationship to traditional maritime activity." (Lewinter v. Genmar Industries, Inc.(1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1214, 1218 citing Executive Jet Aviation v. City of Cleveland (1972) 409 U.S. 249, 268.)

Admiralty Jurisdiction and Tort Claims

For federal admiralty jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1333(1) over a tort claim, the plaintiff “must satisfy conditions both of location and of connection with maritime activity.” (Jerome B. Grubart v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. (1995) 513 U.S. 527, 534.) The location test is simple — the tort must have occurred on navigable water. (Id.) “The connection test raises two issues. A court, first, must ‘assess the general features of the type of incident involved,’ [Citation] to determine whether the incident has ‘a potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce,’ [Citation]. Second, a court must determine whether ‘the general character’ of the ‘activity giving rise to the incident’ shows a ‘substantial relationshi(p to traditional maritime activity.’ (Id.)

The court in Grubart found an admiralty claim when a company had used a crane, sitting on a barge in the river next to a bridge, to drive piles into the bed of the Chicago River above a tunnel, some months after which water poured into the tunnel and flooded basements of Chicago buildings. The court relied on Sisson v. Ruby (1990) 497 U.S. 358. In that case, the court found admiralty jurisdiction over a claim arising from a fire on a vessel docked at a marina on navigable waters. (Id.) The court noted that “navigation as an example, rather than as the sole instance, of conduct that is substantially related to traditional maritime activity.” (Id. at 366.) However, in rejecting Justice Scalia’s proposed simple rules that “every tort occurring on a vessel in navigable waters should give rise to maritime jurisdiction,” the court said: “But the demand for tidy rules can go too far, and when that demand entirely divorces the jurisdictional inquiry from the purposes that support the exercise of jurisdiction, it has gone too far. In Foremost, the Court unanimously agreed that the purpose underlying the existence of federal maritime jurisdiction is the federal interest in the protection of maritime commerce, and that a case must implicate that interest to give rise to such jurisdiction.” (Id. at 364 n2.)

Assumption of Risk Defense and Admiralty Jurisdiction

The “saving to suitors” clause of the federal Judiciary Act grants to state courts in personam jurisdiction, concurrent with admiralty courts. (Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc. (2001) 531 U.S. 438, 445.) The question has significance in a proceeding [concerning the assumption of risk doctrine, because] “assumption of the risk is not permitted as an affirmative defense in admiralty law. Instead, it is deemed a species of contributory negligence which may diminish a plaintiff's recovery in proportion to his share of comparative fault but will not bar recovery in whole.” (Barber v. Marina Sailing, Inc. (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 558, 568.)

Watercraft Collisions

Cases that involve a watercraft collision on navigable waters fall within admiralty law’s domain. (Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A. v. Calhoun (1996) 516 U.S. 199, 206 (Calhoun).) “With admiralty jurisdiction” often “comes the application of substantive admiralty law.” (East River S.S. Corp. v. Transmaerica Delaval Inc. (1986) 476 U.S. 858, 864.) However, state law is not automatically displaced if admiralty law is applied. (Calhoun, supra, at 206.)

Forum Selection Clauses and Admiralty Cases

In admiralty cases, federal law governs the enforceability of forum-selection clauses. (Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute (1991) 499 U.S. 585, 590.) In considering whether a forum-selection clause in a cruise ship ticket is reasonable, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized:

First, a cruise line has a special interest in limiting the fora in which it potentially could be subject to suit. Because a cruise ship typically carries passengers from many locales, it is not unlikely that a mishap on a cruise could subject the cruise line to litigation in several different fora. Additionally, a clause establishing ex ante the forum for dispute resolution has the salutary effect of dispelling any confusion about where suits arising from the contract must be brought and defended, sparing litigants the time and expense of pretrial motions to determine the correct forum and conserving judicial resources that otherwise would be devoted to deciding those motions. Finally, it stands to reason that passengers who purchase tickets containing a forum clause like that at issue in this case benefit in the form of reduced fares reflecting the savings that the cruise line enjoys by limiting the fora in which it may be sued. (Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute (1991) 499 U.S. 585, 593-594.)