Admiralty Law Outline_4

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 7/26/2019 Admiralty Law Outline_4

    1/51

    Admiralty Outline

    I Jurisdiction Generally

    A. Constitutional and Statutory Bases of American Maritime Law

    - 2, Art. III of Const.: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases . . . of admiralty andmaritime urisdiction

    a! "as #een inter$reted to allow federal so%erei&n the $ower to $rescri#e the substantivelaw in maritime cases $endin& in federal court-'ederal law $reem$ts any state law in maritime cases-'irst udiciary Act of ()*+ enacted maritime jurisdiction statute:

    The district courts shall ha%e ori&inal jurisdiction, exclusi%e of the courts of thetates, of: (! Any ci%il case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, sa%in& to suitors in allcases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled. 2! Any $rie #rou&ht into the /nited tates and all $roceedin&s for thecondemnation of $ro$erty ta0en as $rie.

    - (111 &enerally $ro%ides federal and state courts w concurrent jurisdiction to adjudicate

    maritime matters see3sa%in& to suitors4 clause!.-5eed for uniformity is 0ey-In rem$roceedin&s, &enerally actions #rou&ht a&ainst a %essel and #indin& a&ainst the world,are su#ject to exclusi%e federal jurisdiction #c in remactions were un0nown at common law-'ederal courts &enerally ha%e no ri&ht jury trial sa%e for when created #y statute, in state court,determined #y state law

    B. Judicial Interpretations

    Southern Pacific Co. . Jensen/ (+()!, $.6

    'acts: ensen was an em$loyee of the outhern Pacific Com$any P!. "e was wor0in&

    on a shi$ when he #ro0e his nec0 and died. P o#jected to the award from the 578or0ers9 Com$. Commission that was awarded to his remainin& family, ar&uin& theaward %iolated Art. 1, 2 of the Const., conferrin& admiralty to federal courts. 57 Cu$held the award.

    "oldin&: -P is lia#le to em$loyees for on the jo# injuries under the 'ederal m$loyers9;ia#ility Act ';A!.-As a$$lied here, the 8or0men9s Com$ensation Act of 57! conflicts w the &eneralmaritime law under the Const.-%erythin& a#out this case is maritime and wi admiralty jurisdiction-If 57 can su#ject forei&n shi$s comin& into her $orts to such o#li&ations as those

    im$osed #y her com$ensation statute, other states may do li0ewise. The necessaryconse

  • 7/26/2019 Admiralty Law Outline_4

    2/51

    Chelentis . Luc!en"ach/ (+(*!, $.(2

    'acts: Chelentis was a#oard the ;uc0en#ach as a fireman when a wa%e crashed onto theshi$ and #ro0e his le&. "e sued in 57 demandin& full indemnity for his injuries.

    "oldin&: The seaman ar&ued that he was not limited to maritime law dama&es for wa&es,maintenance, and cure. Claimin& that his injuries resulted from the ne&li&ence of asu$erior officer, he filed a common law ne&li&ence suit in state court. The seaman ar&uedthat Con&ress chan&ed the law limitin& his ri&ht to reco%ery under maritime law #yenactin& 2= of the eamen>s Act, c. (?1, 1* tat. ((@6, ((*?. "e ar&ued that the actmade the master a fellow ser%ant of the seaman and therefore that Con&ress intended toma0e the relation #etween the seaman and all the officers throu&hout the same as atcommon law. The court disa&reed, holdin& that 2= was not intended to su#stitute therule of common law ne&li&ence for the maritime law of maintenance and cure. Theseaman was en&a&ed in maritime wor0, under a maritime contract, and his injuries weremaritime in nature. "e was only entitled to wa&es, maintenance, and cure, $ursuant to

    maritime law, #ut he had not res lia#ility determined #y common-law ne&li&encestandards.

    -/nderJensenand Chelentis, the Const. not only $ro%ides federal courts w $ower to hear a case,#ut also &i%es the federal so%erei&n the $ower to articulate the &o%ernin& su#stanti%e law in thea#sence of a statute-Common law remedy defined as in personam, so sa%in& to suitors clause allows state courts toentertain in personammaritime causes of action. A state court hearin& a maritime case a$$liesmaritime law, unless maritime law would ado$t state law as surro&ate maritime law

    #il"urn Boat Co. . $ireman%s $und Ins. Co./ (+??!, $.()'acts: Ps #ou&ht a small house#oat to use for commercial carria&e of $assen&ers on ;a0eTexoma, an artificial inland la0e #w TB and D. E insured the #oat from fire and other$erils. 8hile moored, the #oat was destroyed #y fire. P sued E for the $olicy co%era&ein state courtF case was remo%ed #ased on di%ersity. ;ia#ility was denied #c (! D saidyou couldn9t $led&e title as ha$$ened here and 2! fine $rint of D said the #oat, woconsent, couldn9t #e used for commercial acti%ities.

    "oldin&: -If TB law &o%erns, the P $re%ails #c $ro%ision a&ainst $led&in& would #ein%alid and, under TB law, a fire insurance $olicy isn9t %oid unless the #reach contri#utesto the loss.

    -TC said that TB law wouldn9t a$$ly #c this is an admiralty case, therefore federal lawa$$lies and $olicy #reached, so E wins-8hile a lot of maritime law is &o%erned #y Con&ress, it has left certain re&ulations to thestate, li0e maritime insurance-Traditionally, insurance has #een left to the states, and e%eryone has assumed thatmaritime insurance was $art of that state re&ulation-'ederal court re&ulation here would #e $iecemeal and a disaster-Therefore, TB law should a$$ly and Ps $re%ail

    2

  • 7/26/2019 Admiralty Law Outline_4

    3/51

    -Admiralty law dis$laces state law as to the im$lied warranty of seaworthiness in maritimeinsurance Ds Thanh ;on& Partnershi$ %. "i&hlands Ins. ?thCir. (++?!.-Courts a$$lyin& maritime law may ado$t state law #y ex$ress or im$lied reference where statelaw doesn9t conflict w federal law, or #y %irtue of the interstitial nature of federal law-5o $reem$tion of state en%ironmental statutes $ermittin& reco%ery for economic loss caused #y

    dama&e to natural resources-Article III im$liedly contained three &rants: (! It em$owered Con&ress to confer admiralty andmaritime jurisdiction on the Tri#unals inferior to the su$reme Court which were authoried #yArt. I, *, cl. +. 2! It em$owered the federal courts in their exercise of the admiralty andmaritime jurisdiction which had #een conferred on them, to draw on the su#stanti%e lawinherent in the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and to continue the de%elo$ment of thislaw within constitutional limits. 1! It em$owered Con&ress to re%ise and su$$lement themaritime law within the limits of the Constitution.

    Garrett . Moore&McCormac! Co.' Inc./ (+62!, $.2?

    'acts: P injured while wor0in& as a seaman for E. ued in PA state court $ursuant to the ones

    Act.

    "oldin&: Petitioner em$loyee was injured while wor0in& as a seaman on a %essel for res$ondentem$loyer. The intermediate court affirmed a jud&ment in res$ondent>s fa%or in the suit that$etitioner filed under the ones Act, 6@ /..C.. @**. The Court re%ersed that jud&ment ona$$eal, findin& that $etitioner was entitled to the #enefit of the full sco$e of his federally createdri&hts. The Court found that the intermediate court wron&fully held $etitioner to the state, ratherthan the a$$lica#le federal, standard of sustainin& his challen&e to the %alidity of a release that hesi&ned. The Court reasoned that allowin& the intermediate court to su#stantially alter $etitioner>sfederally esta#lished ri&hts was directly contrary to the con&ressional intent #ehind allowin& it tohear cases under the ones Act.

    -P entitled to #enefit of his federal ri&hts e%en thou&h this case was tried in PA court-PA court says that under PA law Garrett had to meet #urden of $roof to show that release wasn9t#indin& and that he failed to do that-Court finds that ha%e to a$$ly federaladmiralty #urden of $roof #c it affected su#stanti%e ri&htsand not just $rocedure

    -Art. II. 2- judicial $ower shall extend to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdictiona. 'ed can esta#lish cts and has so%erei&n $ower to $rescri#e su#stanti%e law- can$reem$t state law

    -2* /C (111- EC ha%e ori&inal jurisdiction, excusi%e of state ct, of:a. any ci%il admiralty case, sa%in& to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which

    otherwise entitled(. a%in& to suitors- state cts can hear some cases, fed exclusi%e o%er in rem,;imitation of ;ia#ility, Pu#lic Hessels Act, uits in Admiralty, actions to forecloseshi$ mort&a&es, sal%a&e, #an0ru$tcy2. tate cts can hear in $ersonam cases- remedies #ased on state law mustconform to fed cl or at least not contradict it

    a. seaman injuries, collisions, allisions, wa0e dama&e#. Any $rie #rou&ht into /

    1

  • 7/26/2019 Admiralty Law Outline_4

    4/51

    -7amaha otor Cor$. (++?!- 8here non-seaman in%ol%ed in recreational acti%ity is 0illed interritorial waters, sur%i%ors can use state law to reco%er non-$ecuniary dama&es for loss ofsociety-Thanh ;on& ?th Cir. (++6!- Admiralty law dis$laces state law as to im$lied warranty ofseaworthiness in maritime ins. contracts

    Cari##ean Cruise ;ines, ;td. 1d Cir. (++@!- Can wai%e admiralty law if do not in%o0e admiraltyjurisdiction-uries- (111 does not &rant one, (11( fed

  • 7/26/2019 Admiralty Law Outline_4

    5/51

    -5a%i&a#le in fact is na%i&a#le in law

    -xtension of land doctrine has #een a$$lied to fixed mineral $roduction $latforms located milesfrom shore. 8or0ers on the $latforms wi 1 miles &enerally aren9t entitled to federal wor0ercom$ensation #enefitsF #eyond 1 miles the result is dictated more #y federal le&islation than #ymaritime juris$rudential rules.

    -Inland waterways may #e na%i&a#le underDaniel Ball, e%en if man-madea! A la0e #w 2 or more states may #e na%i&a#le underDaniel Ball-Issues of $resent use, ca$a#ility, and seasonality lean toward #ein& considered na%i&a#le-ince canal was used for interstate commerce, considered na%i&a#le water e%en thou&h acti%itywas entirely intrastate---Lwithin admiralty jurisdiction Parsons!-5ot whether it is used for commercial use, whether ca$a#le to #e used commercially Alaskacase!-5o jurisdiction #c not a na%i&a#le ri%er #c can9t &et to location due to dams and trans$ortcommerce. %en thou&h the ri%er could ha%e #een used in the $ast for commerce, now it can9tDanielBallta0in& a hit!LeBlanc!.-ust #c Coast Guard has jurisdiction doesn9t mean admiralty law a$$lies

    a! A lot of #i& la0es that are not na%i&a#le-The Jo#ert Parsons- e%en thou&h #oat only used in intrastate commerce, #ecause it was oncanal of interstate commerce, on na%i&a#le waters, a0in to #ein& on interstate hi&hway-Ea%is- to #e na%i&a#le does not need to #e used for commerce at the time, if it e%er was Cer%ithin0s stu$id!-'oremost- admiralty extends to recreational acti%ity if there is na%i&ation on na%i&a#le water,#ecause such acti%ities can disru$t commerce-Three Muoys- landloc0ed la0e not used for IC has no admiralty

    a. irrele%ant that was once na%i&a#le-;eMlanc 2d Cir (+++!- historical na%i&a#ility does not matter when not currently na%i&a#le dueto human interferenceartificial o#struction, i.e. dam or ra$ids

    -xtension of land doctrine a$$lies to fixed $latforms- if within 1 miles, wor0ers not entitled tofed wor0ers> com$ and torts are state law, if more than 1 miles then use fed le&is

    III. essels

    -Admiralty law will only &o%ern those torts that ha%e a maritime nexus, i.e., torts that occur on,or im$act u$on, the o$eration and na%i&ation of %essels-2 $rinci$al considerations are (! whether a structure has ac

  • 7/26/2019 Admiralty Law Outline_4

    6/51

    "oldin&: -nly seamen can reco%er dama&es under the ones Act, and the 1-$art test fordeterminin& if one is a seaman re

  • 7/26/2019 Admiralty Law Outline_4

    7/51

    wor0 $latform!.-'ind that ri& here is a %essel #ecause it was assem#led to trans$ort wor0o%er ri& and itse

  • 7/26/2019 Admiralty Law Outline_4

    8/51

    - InHolmes, had a floatin& dormitory, no self $ro$ulsion #ut was afloat, and deemed to #e a%essel #c of newDutrarule e%en thou&h it seemin&ly cut a&ainst more traditional definition of%essel-InJordan, 0ey $oint was whether craft could mo%e in the future-8ouldn9t #e mo%ed for 2? yrs and was mo%ed there #ut fact that it could #e mo%ed was enou&h

    to ma0e it a %essel underDutra-InBunch, #oat ferried P to and from cleanin& #ar&e, injured jum$in& from that #oat to a #ar&e-$ent less than (=O of his time on that tu&, so not considered, so focus on the cleanin& #ar&e-Mased onDutra, #ar&e considered a %essel--Llimit case of what they would consider a %essel *th

    Cir!-Im$ortant to loo0 at the Circuits #c they do differentF ?thCir does carry a lot of wei&ht-Hessel in $ro&ress #ecomes one when $ut into na%i&ation--Lsea trials not enou&h to #econsidered in na%i&ation ?thCir!-Goodman *th Cir. (+*+!- shi$ can still #e in admiralty e%en if on shore in need of re$airs

    a. Eead shi$ doctrine- shi$ loses status as a %essel when function so chan&ed that has nofurther na%i&ation function

    -Tonnesen %. 7on0ers Contractin& Co. 2d Cir. (++@!- im$ortant factor in %essel determination is$ur$ose for which %essel is $resently #ein& useda. ome Circuits focus on ori&inal $ur$ose ?th!

    -ordan- offshore $latform that was towed out and would not #e towed somewhere else for 2?yrs, not a %essel-;aJossa %. t. Charles Gamin& Co.- ri%er#oat casino moored to shore not a %essel as$ermanently moored and not ca$a#le of #ein& a %essel-'un Mar&e- a resort community #ar&e with a $ool and $lum#in& to shore is not a %esselPro%ost *th Cir. (+)+!- trailer that falls into froen la0e not a %essel as not traditional maritimeacti%ity-omethin& #ecomes a %essel when it is ca$a#le of #ein& used- not when launched-If arrest a shi$, you underta0e costs while arrested- usually owner issues a letter of underta0in&$romisin& to set aside funds and su#mit to jurisdiction to a%oid arrest-If somethin& is an a$$urtenance of a %essel, then extension act means admiralty a$$lies e%en if a#om#er #om#s land

    a. a$$urtenance- directly related to o$erations of %essel, i.e. affida%it said ss wea$ons system

    I. Contract Jurisdiction

    A. Maritime Contracts Generally

    (orth Pacific S.S. Co. . *all Bros Marine 1ailway / (+(+!, $.?@

    'acts: "all is tryin& to reco%er a #alance claimed to #e due for wor0, la#or done, ser%icesrendered, and materials furnished in and a#out re$airin& a steamshi$ for 5orth Pacific. "alltowed the steamshi$ to its shi$yard, $ut her in a dry doc0, and re$aired. hi$ was doc0ed andre$aired in the manner contem$lated #y the a&reement. Kuestion is whether this contract is wiadmiralty jurisdiction.

    "oldin&: -'or Ds, admiralty jurisdiction de$ends u$on the nature of the D, as to whether it hasreference to maritime ser%ice or transactions

    *

  • 7/26/2019 Admiralty Law Outline_4

    9/51

    -It is settled that a D for #uildin& a shi$ or su$$lyin& materials for her construction isn9t maritime-In Parsons, held that admiralty jurisdiction extended to an action for re$airs u$on a %essel wilein dry doc0. "ere the shi$ was hauled onto land for re$airs, #ut the same $rinci$le should a$$lyand so admiralty jurisdiction extends

    -Ds wi admiralty: carria&e of &oods and $assen&ers, for use of %essels, for loadin& and

    unloadin& of %essels, towa&e, $ilota&e, wharfa&e, %essel su$$lies, insurance, sal%a&e, and therser%ices of seamen and officers. Ds outside admiralty: $rocurement of ser%ices to a %essel aso$$osed to renderin& them!, and Ds to #uild and sell shi$s-A D to lease a %essel, w an o$tion to sell, is a mixed which may under certain circumstances#e treated as a maritime D

    American President Lines' L+- . Green +ransfer and Stora)eE.re. (+*1!, $.@(

    'acts: E loaded, stuffed, and secured reels of aluminum ca#les inside P9s containers, $ursuant toa D #w the $arties. Eurin& ocean %oya&e, the reels shifted and dama&ed the car&o containers. Palle&es a #reach and that this court has admiralty jurisdiction.

    "oldin&: -Character of the wor0 and not where the #reach occurred is what determines admiraltyjurisdiction o%er a D-Generally, a D relatin& to a shi$ in its use as such, or to commerce or na%i&ation on na%i&a#lewaters is su#ject to maritime law and is wi admiralty jurisdiction-;oadin& and unloadin& of car&o from a shi$ has traditionally #een considered maritime-As containers are %iewed as the modern hold of a %essel, the loadin& of them in a mannersuita#le for tra%el could considered the e

  • 7/26/2019 Admiralty Law Outline_4

    10/51

    -5ehrin& ((th Cir. (++=!- contract to ma0e contri#utions to seaman>s union trust fund wasmaritime-;atin American Pro$erty- contract for stora&e of #oats in land facility not maritime, no maritimenexus-heila ahoney C 2==@!- contract to launch a %essel was maritime when did not $ut drain

    $lu& in as contract related to use of %essel as a maritime acti%ity-Mrower 57 (+6)!- Mrower entitled to sal%a&e for findin& #ody in water for 1 months as manhad #een on #oat and en&a&ed in maritime acti%ity as time of his death, so within admiralty-Jo&er edina Ill. (+*2!- contract to store yacht for winter was in admiralty as it was onlyseasonal, to $reser%e seaworthiness, not lon& term

    a. Eifferent than ;atin American as in north, ha%e to store shi$ outside of admiraltycontract jurisdiction- #uild and sell shi$s, $rocure ser%ices for %essel different thanrenderin&!

    B. Mi/ed Contracts

    Luc!y&Goldstar' Int%l . Phi"ro ,ner)y Int%l

    'acts: ;uc0y sued Phi#ro for a #reach of D for sale of &oods and their trans$ort #y sea. ;GI$urchased $etroleum #y $roduct and Phi#ro was to shi$ it to them, #ut the shi$ment was late and#ecame commin&led with other stuff.

    "oldin&: -To su$$ort admiralty jurisdiction for a #reach of D, the underlyin& D must #e whollymaritime-'or a mixed D, (! if the character of the D is $rimarily maritime and the non-maritime elementsof the D are incidental, will ha%e admiralty jurisdiction or 2! if a D9s maritime o#li&ations arese$ara#le from its non-maritime as$ects and can #e tried se$arately wo $rejudice to the other,admiralty jurisdiction will su$$ort trial of the maritime o#li&ations-"ere, a $rinci$al $ur$ose of the D was land-#ased sale of $etroleum, so non-maritime elements

    are not incidental and the two cannot #e se$arated at trial, so no admiralty jurisdiction

    Insurance Case-Mc #oats store on land and that was what the D was for, no admiralty jurisdiction just a stora&econtractQ!-D for dry stora&e of $leasure, not admiralty #c $leasure #oats so not maritime commerce

    Shelia Mahone-Mreach of D for warranty of $erformance, drain $lu& for&ot to #e $ut in the #oat-D here was to launch a %essel, not the shi$ #uilder-o this was an admiralty case

    !"#$%%-al%a&e action-P found the money on a dead &uy and thin0s he is owed the money #c he sal%a&ed the #odyfrom the water-Court finds that this is a sal%a&e action #c cor$se was on a #oat and en&a&ed in maritimeacti%ity when he died-Im$licit D here is that when you sal%a&e somethin& you &et the fruits of that ris0

    (=

  • 7/26/2019 Admiralty Law Outline_4

    11/51

    &o'er-easonal stora&e Ds are in admiralty #c $reser%in& sea worthiness may not #e the same forlon&er Ds and o#%iously differs from a#o%eInsurance Case!-5ecessity of stora&e here mi&ht #e the 0ey #c this Ill. while the other case is a 'la one

    Provost-Truc0 trans$ortin& home o%er froen la0e, #ecomes su#mer&ed-Insufficient nexus w traditional maritime acti%ity and no %essel $lus non traditional maritimesal%a&e so not admiralty

    -aritime Ds concern &ettin& a shi$ and its car&o from $oint A to $oint M, includes charterin&,towin&, etc-Ds for re$air, haul out in admiralty-Eistinction #w re$airs and re#uildin&---Lre#uildin& not in admiralty-D for $urchase and sale of %essels not maritime

    -D for care of $assen&ers on a %essel are admiralty as seamen wa&e dis$utes-Ds for &eneral a&ency ser%ices to %essels are wi admiralty as they relate to o$erations of %essels-D to #uy fish not in admiralty-'ailure to $ay maintenance and cure to seamen on shore is maritime-I' entire D is for inland and maritime shi$$in& then wi admiralty-n land stora&e of %essels can #e in admiralty-Ds for offshore oil ex$loration is maritime D-aritime insurance Ds are wi admiralty if the su#ject of insurance relates to maritime insurance

    -Mlan0et contract- em$loyeeinde$endent contractor indemnifies em$loyer for all actions ta0ento $erform s$ecific wor0 orders issued later-Ea%is ons, Inc. ?th Cir. (++=!- if contract has maritime and non-maritime as$ects andmaritime can #e se$arately enforced, then if injury occurs in $erformance of se$ara#le maritimeo#li&ation $ro%ided for #y $rinci$ally non-maritime #lan0et contract, whole contract stillmaritime-ix factors to determine su#ject and nature of contract- if factors say maritime, then indemnityenforcea#le, if non-maritime, then state law &o%erns

    (. 8hat s$ecific wor0 order at time of injury $ro%ides2. 8hat wor0 crew under wor0 order actually did1. 8as crew assi&ned to wor0 on %essel on na%i&a#le waters6. xtent that wor0 #ein& done is related to mission of %essel?. Princi$al wor0 of injured wor0er@. 8hat wor0 #ein& done at time of injury

    -'or indemnity- intent has to #e clear, has to #e arm>s len&th transaction-In admiralty- defects #reach $roduct lia#ility if shi$ launched, minor re$airs, carria&e of$assen&ers on na%i&a#le waters, dis$utes o%er seaman $ayment, car&o from A to M, iftrans$ortin& car&o from A to M on land under contract that in%ol%es shi$$in& on sea, offshoredrillin&, ins contracts for car&o, %essel, or other maritime o#ject

    . Jurisdiction Oer +orts

    ((

  • 7/26/2019 Admiralty Law Outline_4

    12/51

    -Prior to (+)=s, &enerally acce$ted rule was that tort was in admiralty if it occurred on na%i&a#lewaters

    A. General Maritime +ort Jurisdiction 2 +he Jurisprudential 1ule

    ,/ecutie Jet . Cleeland/ (+)2!, $.)2

    'acts: xec. et P! suin& Cle%eland for $ro$erty dama&e when its jet too0 off, struc0 sea&ulls,and crashed into ;a0e rie. Kuestion is whether this is an admiralty case.

    "oldin&: -Court a#andons locality only test-'or their to #e jurisdiction, tort must occur on na%i&a#le waters and #ear a si&nificantrelationshi$ to a traditional maritime acti%ity-A $lane crash does not $ass this test

    -E"A- extended admiralty o%er $lanes that crash o%er a lea&ue from shore and causewron&ful death

    $oremost Ins. Co. . 1ichardson/ (+*2!, $.*2

    'acts: Two $leasure #oats collided on a ri%er in ;ouisiana, 0illin& one.

    "oldin&: Mecause the wron& here in%ol%es the ne&li&ent o$eration of a %essel on na%i&a#lewaters, we #elie%e that it has a sufficient nexus to traditional maritime acti%ity to sustainadmiralty jurisdiction a! aritime acti%ity doesn9t need to #e an exclusi%ely commercial one-This rule will ensure uniformity and effecti%e re&ulation

    -Eue to need for uniform na%i&ation rules, $otential im$act of collisions on maritime commerce,and confusion o%er the commercial jurisdictional test

    Sisson . 1u"y/ (++=!, $.**

    'acts: -isson owned a $leasure #oat that was doc0ed at a marina when it cau&ht fire anddama&ed se%eral nei&h#orin& %esselsF he is sued here for dama&es. isson in%o0ed $ro%isions ofthe ;imited ;ia#ility Act that limits the lia#ility of an owner of a %essel for any dama&e done wothe $ri%ity or 0nowled&e of an owner to the %alue of the %essel and its frei&ht R*== in this case!.

    "oldin&: -A fire on a %essel doc0ed at a marina on na%i&a#le waters $lainly satisfies there

  • 7/26/2019 Admiralty Law Outline_4

    13/51

    B. -eath on the *i)h Seas "y #ron)ful Act

    -6@ /..C. )@( esta#lished a ri&ht of action in admiralty for wron&ful death on the hi&h seas#eyond a marine lea&ue 1 miles! from the shore-Jelationshi$ to a traditional maritime acti%ity isn9t a $rere

  • 7/26/2019 Admiralty Law Outline_4

    14/51

    #. test satisfied when at least one tortfeasor was en&a&in& in acti%ity su#stantially relatedto maritime acti%ity and such acti%ity is $roximate cause of incident- does not matter thatChica&o also ne&li&ent and land-#ased

    1! location test- whether tort occurred on na%i&a#le water or whether injury suffered on landwas caused #y %essel on na%i&a#le water

    -uluth Superior ,/cursions' Inc. . Ma!ela*thCir. (+*=!, $.((6

    'acts: P #rou&ht this action to limit $otential lia#ility. E was struc0 and injured #y a car. E andthe car9s dri%er had just disem#ar0ed from P9s chartered #ooe cruise.

    "oldin&: -;ittle s lia#ility to %alue of %essel and car&o afteraccident

    -;imitation of ;ia#ility Act, 6@ /..C. (*(, $ro%ides an inde$endent #asis of maritime

    jurisdiction, and thus $ermits a limitation $roceedin& #y the owner of a $leasure #oat in%ol%ed inan accident on non-na%i&a#le waters In Je Mernstein!-Admiralty jurisdiction doesn9t extend to medical mal$ractice cases a&ainst a land #ased doctorsiller %. Griffin-Alexander!-In re Mernstein ass. (+++! - ;imitation Act $ro%ides inde$endent #asis in admiralty andallows a limitation #y owner of $leasure #oat in%ol%ed in accident in non-na%i&a#le waters-Con& has amended ;imitation of ;ia#ility Act so that a %icarious lia#ility suit for medicalmal$ractice on shore- ownerem$loyer can in%o0e state law statutory limits on lia#ility to healthcare $ro%iders-Two ways to in%o0e-

    a. affirmati%e suit that &i%es notice to all $otential $>s that you are limitin& your lia#ility

    #. affirmati%e defense- now each $ has full access to limited lia#ility fund, whereas if doit as affirmati%e suit, ha%e to s$lit s$ot ex. If max lia#ility is R(==,===, all ? Ps ha%e toshare that (==0 if you #rin& affirmati%e suitF #ut can #e lia#le for ?==0 if just raised as anaffirmati%e defense!

    I. Charter Parties

    -A&reement #y which owner a&rees to $lace entire or $art of shi$ at dis$osal of someone else

    (6

  • 7/26/2019 Admiralty Law Outline_4

    15/51

    A. Generally

    Matute . Lloyd Bermuda Lines' Ltd.1d Cir. (++(!, $.((+

    ;M; had time charter to use shi$>s car&o hold, TA was ;M;>s &eneral a&ent, &ot crew atair$ort, $aid for them to &et to shi$ later deducted!

    a. ;M; was a time charter and could not ha%e #een a owner $ro hac %ice for this e%ent!

    #. Charterers &enerally not lia#le to seaman for maintenance and cure- three exce$tions(. xercise such control that are owner $ro hac %ice- normally only when ta0eexclusi%e control under demise charter2. m$loyer of injured seaman1. If, as a&ent of owner, ne&li&ent fail to $ro%ide medical care

    B. +he -emise Charter

    -'ull $ossessioncontrol of %essel transferred to charterer(! Mare#oat- %essel transferred without crew or $ro%isions2! wner $ro hac %ice- su#ject to same lia#ilities of owner, entitled to ;imitation on ;ia#ilityAct

    a. Hessel owner still lia#le for injuries caused due to $reexistin& defects- $rimary duty isto $ro%ide seaworthy %essel1! ust redeli%er in same condition, minus ordinary wear and tear

    C. +he +ime Charter-Contract for s$ecific ser%ice of %essel, i.e. carryin& &oods, for s$ecified $eriod of time(! ;ia#le for own ne&li&ence as charterer- not as owner2! "od&en %. 'orrest il ?th Cir. (++@!- owes hy#rid tortcontract duty to a%oid ne& actions ins$heres of acti%ity o%er which has at least $artial control, i.e. car&o or route

    a. Eoes not extend to safe in&ress and e&ress from shi$1! Charterer normally $ays fees associated with mo%in& its car&o, i.e. &as

    -. +he oya)e Charter-/se of %essel limited to a sin&le or series of %oya&es #etween defined $orts(! wner retains controlo$eration- res$onsi#le for all &eneral ex$enses

    a. ay #e lia#le for dama&e to car&o due to fault char&ea#le to owner - charter has#urden of showin& dama&e caused #y #reach of somethin& s$ecifically in charter $arty #y$roximate cause

    2! Parties contract for who has what duty related to car&o- default is owner res$onsi#le forloadin&unloadin&

    II. Carria)e of Goods "y Sea and +u) and +owa)e

    -'ire tatute: 5o shi$owner can #e held lia#le for any loss or dama&e to merchandise on #oardhis %essel #y reason of fire unless this fire has #een caused #y the desi&n or ne&lect of theshi$owner.-"arter Act: (*+1! Jelie%es the owner of a shi$ from the conse

  • 7/26/2019 Admiralty Law Outline_4

    16/51

    com$etent master and creF this act still a$$lies to domestic water shi$ments #y common carriers,althou&h it has #een su$erseded #y CGA on shi$ments to and from forei&n countries.-CGA: (+1@! Go%erns the acts that a carrier is res$onsi#le for, and it defines the terms usedin shi$$in&. The act $ro%ides that the shi$owner9s lia#ility will #e limited to R?== $er shi$$in&$ac0a&e, and it states that there9s a ( year time limit for filin& suit a&ainst the carrier. This act

    automatically a$$lies to international ocean mo%ements #ut not to domestic ocean transits unlessthe carrier a&rees to #e #ound #y it.

    A. +he Coera)e of the *arter and COGSA

    -Generally, the carrier is o#li&ated to use due dili&ence to send out a seaworthy %essel, and islia#le for ne&li&ence in the stowa&e and handlin& of the car&o durin& the %oya&e. ost of theother ris0s of the %oya&e are allocated to car&o, either #y terms of the #ill of ladin& "arter! or #yo$eration of law CGA!-eaworthiness is a defense for the owner can &et &eneral a%era&e!-Eue dili&ence is also a defense-rror in na%i&ation is also a defense

    #emhoener Pressen . Ceres Marine +erminals' Inc.6thCir. (++1!, $.(1=

    'acts: P shi$$ed a hydraulic $ress to the /nited tates. In Maltimore, E9s wor0er used a cuttin&torch to remo%e the steel ca#les hold the $ress down, #ut the $ac0a&e cau&ht fire, dama&in& the$ress and the crate it was on. E ar&ues that the lia#ility of each $ac0a&e was only R?== #ased on (1=6?! of CGA, which sti$ulates that the carrier shall not #e lia#le for o%er R?== $er$ac0a&e, unless, $rior to shi$$in&, the shi$$er declares a hi&her %alue for the &oods in the #ill ofladin&. To su$$ort its claim, Ceres $oints to the 3"imalaya4 clause in the #ill of ladin& thatextends limited lia#ility not just to the %oya&e, #ut the whole o$erations and ser%ices underta0en#y the carrier in res$ect of the &ood.

    "oldin&: -At the time of dama&e, no deli%ery had ta0en $lace-"imalaya clause meant to #enefit 1rd$arties who were su#contracted, li0e Ceres-The car&o stri$$in& is a $eculiar maritime acti%ity-o dama&e occurred durin& carria&e and #efore deli%ery, and "imalaya clause is meant to co%ersomeone li0e Ceres-"imalaya cl. extends CGA $rotection to third $arty #eneficiaries that it su#contracts

    a. carria&e until deli%ery

    -R?== $er $ac0a&e in lia#ility in CGA-"arter Act a$$lies to domestic as well as forei&n, while CGA only a$$lies to international

    a! ther major difference is limit in $ac0a&e lia#ility- "imalaya cl. extends CGA $rotection to third $arty #eneficiaries that it su#contracts

    a. Carria&e until deli%ery

    May . *am"ur)/ (+11!, $.(62

    'acts: hi$ is dama&ed and $ulls into $ort for ins$ection. The master of the %essel came toins$ect it and decided it should sail to "am#ur& rather than #e delayed for re$airs. 8hile #ein&towed, the tu&s went too fast and shi$ ran a&round, had to #e ta0en #ac0 and re$aired, hu&edelays and ex$ense.

    (@

  • 7/26/2019 Admiralty Law Outline_4

    17/51

    "oldin&s: -ason clause: Consi&nees a&ree that, if the shi$owner has used due dili&ence to ma0ethe shi$ seaworthy, the car&o is to #e lia#le in &eneral a%era&e when the sacrifice or ex$enseresults from ne&li&ent na%i&ation-Consi&nees don9t dis$ute the lia#ility of the car&o for &eneral a%era&e contri#utions in res$ect ofthe first strandin&, they do for the 2ndthou&h

    -After the first strandin&, owner inter%ened and decided to let the shi$ &o #ac0 out a&ain woexercisin& reasona#le dili&ence, which would ha%e re%ealed how extensi%e the dama&e was tothe shi$9s rudder. Therefore, ason clause doesn9t a$$ly after the first strandin&-If contracted, car&o owners ha%e to contri#ute to dama&e due to ne& of crew or mana&ement aslon& as owner too0 due dili&ence to ensure seaworthy %essel

    a. General rule- %essel, car&o, and fuel contri#ute to ris0 of %oya&e &eneral a%era&einterests!, $eo$le ha%e to contri#ute $ro$ortionate to their %alue

    (. Althou&h no dama&e to car&o, still has to contri#ute to injury to %essel car&oowner!

    #. %eryone contri#utes to first crash, #ut no &eneral a%era&e on second as owner %iamana&er did not ta0e due dili&ence to ma0e sure seaworthy, shi$ had #ad rudder

    -General A%era&e S All contri#ute to the ris0 of the shi$ car&o owner has to contri#ute costs forthe worth of its %alue!-Innocent car&o may still ha%e to $lay-/nder "arter, freedom from lia#ility for ne&li&ent na%i&ation or mana&ement of the %esselde$ends u$on exercisin& the due dili&ence to ma0e the %essel seaworthy at the outset of the%oya&e, e%en if the %essel9s unseaworthiness mi&ht not ha%e caused the loss.-/nder CGA, the immunity from ne&li&ence is inde$endent of the o#li&ation to exercise duedili&ence to $ro%ide a seaworthy %essel at the outset, a#sent a causal relationshi$ #w the failureto exercise due dili&ence and the loss

    -Col&ate %. Palmoli%e 2d Cir.!- when CGA is a$$lied %ia contract lan&ua&e rather than its

    own force, state law can oust it-Attachment- if forei&n E not doin& #usiness in district, you can attach their $ro$erty throu&hwarrant, often throu&h #an0 accounts as money is #ein& wired

    a. xce$tion- cannot seie forei&n &o%t shi$ as $rejud&ment matter-"arter- co%ers from when car&o is ta0en $ossession of until it is deli%ered, no ca$ $er $ac0a&e,#ut limitations ha%e to #e reasona#le, forei&n or domestic, CGA su$ersedes for forei&n, sodoes not a$$ly for one forei&n $ort to another, e%en if &oes throu&h /-CGA - co%ers tac0le to tac0le, #ut most contracts extend it to "arter sco$e, just co%ersforei&n trade, ca$s lia#ility on a $ac0a&e at ?==-/nder CGA can ha%e immunity from ne& na%i&ation or mana&ement of %essel e%en if no duedili&ence or seaworthiness, exce$t if there is causal relationshi$ #etween no due dili&ence andthe loss

    B. General Allocation of the 1is!s Between Shipper and Carrier

    International (ai)ation Co. . $arr 0 Bailey Manufacturin)/ (+=(!

    -Kuestion is whether the shi$ was unseaworthy at the time of #e&innin& her %oya&e, or was thefailure to securely fasten the $rt co%ers and 0ee$ them fastened a fault or error in themana&ement of the %essel under the exem$tion of the "arter Act.

    ()

  • 7/26/2019 Admiralty Law Outline_4

    18/51

    -A shi$owner doesn9t exercise due dili&ence wi the meanin& of the "arter Act #y merelyfurnishin& $ro$er structure and e

  • 7/26/2019 Admiralty Law Outline_4

    19/51

    c. 2d Cir says $ac0a&es not determined #y num#er of containers #ut a#out how many$ac0a&es #ill of ladin& says there were

    +aisho Marine 0 $ire Insurance Co. . Sea&Land ,ndurance+thCir. (+*)!, $.()*

    -;aw used to distin&uish #etween containers stored a#o%e dec0, not CGA insured, and #elow

    dec0, insureda. Peril of sea defense- main thin& is %iolence of winds, rarely successful now #ecause oftechnolo&y, can a%oid

    (. xtent of structural dama&e to %essel2. xtent of any s$eed reduction1. xtent of cross-seas6. "ow far %essel #lown off course?. To what extent other %essels in storm had car&o dama&e

    #. alt water dama&e to car&o &i%es $resum$tion of unseaworthiness

    ,. -ama)es

    $ishman 0 +o"in' Inc. . +ropical Shippin) 0 Construction((thCir. 2==(!, $.(*6

    -Touchstone in decidin& lia#ility is #ill of ladin&a. 5either #ill of ladin& nor reem#ar

  • 7/26/2019 Admiralty Law Outline_4

    20/51

    -Ee%iations to sa%e life or $ro$erty $resumed reasona#le

    G. ,/culpatory Clauses

    Se)uros . S!y 1eefer/ (++?!, $. 2==

    -Clause in #ill of ladin& callin& for exclusi%e forei&n jurisdiction not o0, undid lots of Circuit lawa. 8illin& to acce$t forei&n ar#itration cls and choice of law cls S wants to reduce fedadmiralty doc0et, #ut can #e shown to #e in%alid if circumstances re

  • 7/26/2019 Admiralty Law Outline_4

    21/51

    1. Jis0 incurred #y sal%ors6. al%or>s $rom$titude, s0ill, and ener&y?. Halue of sa%or>s $ro$erty at ris0@. al%or>s time and la#or

    #. Adds factor- s0ills and efforts in $re%entin& or minimiin& dama&e to en%ironment

    6S . ,/ 2 6SS Ca"ot:-edaloE TB 2===!, $.)*1

    -Threat to %essel sal%a&ed does not need to #e imminent, do not need to show %essel definitelywould ha%e #een destroyed a#sent inter%ention, just that reasona#le to #elie%e so

    B. $inds and A"andoned Shipwrec!s

    -Generally, $ro$erty lost or a#andoned in na%i&a#le waters for @= years that is sa%ed is a Nfind9and the finder &ets ownershi$-8here the $ro$erty is lost for many years, it may s is ?=O and (= of car&o is lost, shi$ has to &i%e car&o ?, and car&oeats ? as a loss

    2(

  • 7/26/2019 Admiralty Law Outline_4

    22/51

    -Carrier &uilty of fault cannot claim &eneral a%era&e

    The %essel>s car&o was loaded and the crew $re$ared for sailin& #y chec0in& the na%i&ationales. The court held that althou&h the %essel was not in imminent $eril, she could notha%e com$leted a safe %oya&e if she had not returned to $ort for re$airsF therefore, it was a&eneral a%era&e act.. The court held that there was no limitation under the Carria&e of Goods #yea Act, 6@ /..C.. (1==-(1(?, for &eneral a%era&e and that the com$any was entitled tocontri#ution e%en in li&ht of the $ilot>s ne&li&ent acts.

    I=. +u)s and +owa)e

    A)rico Chemical Co. Ben #. Martin?thCir. (+*(!, $.2(=

    -A enters into contract of affrei&htment with M, who enters into contract with ; to tu& two #ar&es,A then re

  • 7/26/2019 Admiralty Law Outline_4

    23/51

    Bisso . Inland #aterways Corp./ (+??!, $.2(@

    -Towa&e contract had two clauses relie%in& tu& owner of lia#ility: towin& at sole ris0 of #ar&e,and master, crew, em$loyees of tu& are ser%ants of #ar&e in $erformance of contract

    a. Jule in%alidates contracts releasin& towers from all lia#ility for their ne& - res oil #ar&e was #ein& towed u$ri%er #y res$ondent>s tow#oat, res$ondent>so$eratin& crew ne&li&ently caused $etitioner>s oil #ar&e to collide with a #rid&e $ier and sin0.The u$reme Court re%ersed a jud&ment affirmin& the %alidity of certain $ro%isions in thetowa&e contract that exem$ted res$ondent tow#oat owner from all lia#ility to $etitioner oil #ar&eowner for ne&li&ence. The Court concluded that $u#lic $olicy $recluded reco&nition of such

    $ro%isions and ado$ted a judicial rule that in%alidated such $ro%isions. This towa&e contract rulewas intended to discoura&e ne&li&ence #y ma0in& wron&doers $ay dama&es and to $rotect thosein need of &oods and ser%ices from #ein& o%erreached #y others who had su#stantial #ar&ainin&$ower. Therefore, res$ondent was not contractually relie%ed of lia#ility #y $ro%idin& that thetowin& was done at the sole ris0 of $etitioner. 'urther, res$ondent was una#le to e%ade lia#ility#y $ro%idin& in the towa&e contract that all of its em$loyees were em$loyees of $etitioner wheresuch em$loyment was $urely a fiction #ecause the em$loyees remained at all times su#ject tores$ondent>s com$lete control.

    -Je&ular $ilots are ordinarily an em$loyee of the %essel9s o$erator, and the %essel9s lia#ility forhis error is determined #y res$ondeat su$erior $rinci$les-$ecial $ilots are inde$endent contractors, and &enerally %essel o$erator not lia#le for these

    com$ulsory $ilots, thou&h shi$ mi&ht #e lia#le in remfor torts-Kuestion is whether a towa&e D can contract out of lia#ility for its own ne&li&ence-Jule that you can9t contract out lia#ility for own ne&li&ence in these cases- Jule: In a towa&e D, cannot contract out of lia#ility for your own ne&li&ence-a$ata ff-hore Co. (+)2!- u$held cl. res lia#ility determined #y res$ondeatsu$erior

    #. $ecial Pilots- inde$endent contractors, often com$ulsory(. Hessel o$erator- normally not lia#le %ia res$ondeat su$erior for tort, %essel may

    #e lia#le in rema. ay#e lia#le if master fails to inter%ene

    =. Maritime Liens

    -A maritime lien may attach to a %essel or to other maritime $ro$erty, such as car&o, and mayarise throu&h contract or #y o$eration of law

    A. +he Conentional Lien 2 +he Maritime Preferred Ship Mort)a)e

    21

  • 7/26/2019 Admiralty Law Outline_4

    24/51

    -General maritime law does not reco&nie mort&a&es, section A uncommon don>t need to 0now!-hi$ ort&a&e Act- creditor must ta0e $ains to insure mort&a&e com$lies with Act

    a. aritime $referred mort&a&e- only &ranted on documented %essels, ordinarily o%er ?tons

    B. Implied Maritime Lien-Person $ro%idin& &oods or ser%ices to %essel in furtherance of %oya&e entitled to a lien

    ,pstein . Corporacion Peruana -e aporesE57 (+)(!, $.211

    -Ca$tain #uys 2 mil ci&s and 6= cases of #ooe, $ays $artially on credit, $re%iously always incash, em$loyer refused to $ay

    a. Ca$tain did not ha%e ex$ress, a$$arent, or im$lied authority to #ind em$loyer- outsidesco$e of em$loyment, P had no reason to thin0 otherwise

    (. A$$arent authority- when owner su&&ests has authority2. Im$lied authority- from conformity with law or &eneral #usiness customs

    #. Ca$tain has full authority to #ind %essel>s owner for $urchase of necessaries- includes

    ci&s, #ut these for other shi$sPlaintiff>s salesman sold to the ca$tain a lar&e

  • 7/26/2019 Admiralty Law Outline_4

    25/51

    c. 5ot res wa&es#. al%a&ec. Tort and collision liens- startin& with most recently accruedd. Je$airs, su$$lies, towa&e, other necessariese. Mottomry #onds in in%erse order of a$$licationf. 5on-maritime claims

    -ones Act ne&li&ence claim does not &i%e rise to a lien

    Ban! One . Mr. -ean?thCir. 2==2!, $.26=

    -Mar&eCri# MC! entered time charter with ffshore u$$ly, Inc. !, who owned r. Eean, sold to Glo#al Towin& G!, who too0 out mort&a&e with Man0 ne M!, G ne%er deli%ered r.

    Eean to M after mort&a&ea. If MC>s lien for #reach of charter arises at time of #reach, it would #e after mort&a&e, soM would ha%e $riority#. aritime lien attaches when a charter ceases to #e executory andremains inchoate until $erfected #y #reach of that charter

    (. /nli0e contract of affrei&htment, time charter ceases to #e executory whenowner $laces %essel at charter>s dis$osal- at #e&innin& of charter a&reement

    The car&o com$any executed a time charter a&reement with the owners to hire the %essel to$ro%ide $ro$ulsion for one of its ocean&oin& #ar&es. The owners failed to deli%er the %essel. Thecar&o com$any filed suit a&ainst the %essel in federal district court in Texas and o#tained anorder which stated that the charter had #een #reached. The owners o#tained a shi$ mort&a&e on

    the %essel throu&h the #an0. The owners defaulted on the mort&a&e and the #an0 commenced the$resent liti&ation. The court of a$$eals held that the %essel had #een $laced at the car&ocom$any>s dis$osal, and was em$loyed under the charter, months #efore the #an0 recorded its$referred shi$ mort&a&e, and therefore an inchoate maritime lien attached to the %essel. Theowners $erfected the car&o com$any>s maritime lien #y #reachin& the charter, at which time thelien #ecame enforcea#le. Therefore, the maritime lien arose #efore the mort&a&e was filed.

    =I. General Maritime +ort Law

    2?

  • 7/26/2019 Admiralty Law Outline_4

    26/51

    -A$$lies when no statutory $ro%ision exists e.&., ones Act!F so ha%e jud&e made common law#ehind &eneral maritime tort law

    A. (e)li)ence

    7ermarec . Compa)nie Generale +ransatlanti5ue/ (+?+!, $.26)

    -P on #oard shi$ to %isit fried, sli$s, alle&edly due to mistac0ed can%asa. Euty of reasona#le care under circumstances- owner of shi$ owes to e%eryone on #oardfor $ur$oses not inimical to his le&itimate interests

    (. Eoes not a$$ly to stowaways- inimical#. Cannot reco%er for unseaworthiness as not crew mem#er- just for ne&li&encec. Cer%i- when $lain haards, li0ely lia#le, $ro#a#ly do not need to see0 out haards

    8hile %isitin& a seaman a#oard a %essel #erthed in 5ew 7or0, the &uest was injured whiledescendin& a stairway. The &uest sued the shi$owner, claimin& unseaworthiness of the %essel andne&li&ence under maritime law. The district court ruled that 5ew 7or0 law, not maritime law,a$$lied and dismissed the unseaworthiness claim. The jury was instructed that, under 5ew 7or0law, the &uest was a &ratuitous licensee who could reco%er only if the shi$owner had failed to

    warn of a 0nown dan&erous condition. The jury>s %erdict for the &uest was set aside and thene&li&ence claim dismissed on a rulin& that the &uest failed to $ro%e actual 0nowled&e #y theshi$owner that the stairs were dan&erous. The court of a$$eals affirmed. n further re%iew, the/.. u$reme Court a&reed that an unseaworthiness claim could not #e raised #ecause the &uestwas not a seaman. In %acatin& the jud&ment, the Court ruled that the a$$lication of the 5ew 7or0$ro$erty law distin&uishin& #etween licensees and in%itees was error. Jather, maritime lawa$$lied and it im$osed a duty on the shi$owner of reasona#le care toward those lawfully a#oardthe %essel who were not crewmem#ers, includin& the &uest.

    -o maritime law did a$$ly, not 57 law, and duty owed is reasona#le care under thecircumstances to all those on #oard not inimical! on na%i&a#le waters-Contri#utory ne&li&ence was the $ro$er standard #ut here P had no fault

    7orn"er) . Carnial Cruise Lines' Inc.((thCir. (+*6!, $.2?(

    -Cruise contract had ne& disclaimer, warranty of seaworthiness disclaimer, and disclaimer oflia#ility for full $erformance of cruise

    a. 5one of disclaimers a$$lied- ade

  • 7/26/2019 Admiralty Law Outline_4

    27/51

    disclaimer of lia#ility for ne&li&enceF a disclaimer of any warranty of seaworthinessF and adisclaimer of lia#ility for interru$tion of full $erformance of the cruise. The court found that thethree disclaimers #ased in admiralty did not a$$ly to the $assen&ers and that it was error to &rantsummary jud&ment #ased on the disclaimers. 'or a class action, a class re$resentati%e>s claimshad to #e ty$ical of the class. There had to #e a nexus #etween the claims and the common

    s order was affirmed on certiorari re%iew.The court held that the economic loss doctrine a$$lied in admiralty cases. The chartererssustained $urely economic losses when the tur#ine en&ines failedF only the tur#ines themsel%eswere dama&ed when they failed. As the failure of the tur#ine en&ines to $ro$erly function wasthe essence of a #reach of warranty action, the charterers had to $ursue a warranty action toreco%er.

    -A#sent a rele%ant statute, the &eneral maritime law, as de%elo$ed #y the judiciary a$$lies.Erawn from states and federal sources, the &eneral maritime law is an amal&am of traditionalcommon law rules, modifications of those rules, and newly created rules

    -Tort claim is a%aila#le if the defecti%e $roduct causes injury not to itself #ut other $ro$erty-Tort claim a%aila#le if defecti%e $roduct injures other $ro$ertya. arato&a 'ishin& Co. (++)!- other $ro$erty is anythin& that initial manufacturer didnot sell, includin& thin&s added #y #uyers who $redate current owner#. 5icor u$$ly ?th Cir. (+*+!- e%en thou&h manufacturer failed to warn of defect0nown at time of sale does not ta0e out of ast Ji%er

    (. Charterer can sue in tort for ina#ility to use e

  • 7/26/2019 Admiralty Law Outline_4

    28/51

    -A#solute lia#ility for tortfeasor for destruction or dama&e to na%i&ation or flood $re%entionstructures #uilt #y the / and for $ollution in %iolation of the il Pollution Act

    C. Causes in $act

    -In maritime tort law, E>s su#standard conduct must #e cause in fact, either #ut for cause or

    su#stantial factor, of harma. ones Act- ne& claims where E>s conduct just needs to $lay some $art in causin& harm

    -. -efenses

    6S . 1elia"le +ransfer Co' Inc./ (+)?!, $.2@6

    -8hen two or more $arties cause $ro$erty dama&e #y collision or strandin&, dama&es are to #eallocated $ro$ortionate to fault

    a. 8hen com$arati%e fault cannot #e fairly measured- dama&esdi%ided e

  • 7/26/2019 Admiralty Law Outline_4

    29/51

    #reaches were causes in fact of $etitioner>s injury.

    Lewis . +imco' Inc.?thCir. (+*1!, $.2)(

    -;ewis was usin& hydraulic ton&s, &ets cau&ht in line, seriously injureda. com$arati%e fault a$$lies in $roduct lia#ility suits in admiralty- $reser%es uniformity

    (ational Marine Serice' Inc. . Petroleum Serice' Corp.?thCir. (+*6!, $.2)@

    -Contri#utory ne&- P>s failure to act as reasona#le $erson would ha%e acted under the same orsimilar circumstances, re&ardless of whether actually 0new of ris0-Assum$tion of ris0- actual awareness of condition, %oluntary decision to encounter-5o difference #etween a. and #. in admiralty- loo0in& solely at com$arati%e fault

    Plaintiff #ar&e owner deli%ered car&o to defendant car&o owner>s $lant on the ississi$$i Ji%er.n arri%al, $laintiff was informed that defendant tan0erman ser%ice would su$er%ise and unloadthe #ar&e. Plaintiff>s tan0erman tele$honed a su$er%isor with defendant car&o owner and ad%isedhim that it was necessary to flood the ra0e com$artment #efore dischar&in& the car&o. Thedistrict court concluded that $laintiff had failed to demonstrate that the messa&e was not

    deli%ered to defendant tan0erman ser%ice. The district court found that $laintiff was @? $ercent atfault for the sin0in& of the #ar&e 2? $ercent for the assum$tion of a ne&li&ent desi&n and 6=$ercent for inde$endent fault!F that defendant tan0erman ser%ice was 1? $ercent at fault forfailin& to maintain sur%eillance of the #ar&e after the sluice %al%es had #een o$enedF and thatdefendant car&o owner was not at fault. Plaintiff a$$ealed. n a$$eal, the court affirmed thefindin& that defendant car&o owner was not at fault, #ut re%ersed and remanded for re-determination of $laintiff>s fault #ecause the all or nothin& defense of assum$tion of the ris0should ha%e #een determined under the $rinci$les of com$arati%e fault.

    -Com$arati%e contri#ution a$$lies in non-collision cases-The release of one tortfeasor does not release all other joint tortfeasors a#sent an a&reement tosuch effect

    -Assum$tion of ris0 does not a$$ly in admiralty

    ,. icarious Lia"ility

    Stoot . -0- Caterin) Serice' Inc.?thCir. (+*)!, $.2)*

    -toot tells coo0 to 0iss his ass, coo0 flies into ra&e and se%ers two of his fin&ersa. Hicarious lia#ility u$on em$loyers for wron&doin& of em$loyees in sco$e ofem$loyment exists under a&ency law- coo0 outside of sco$e, %ery fact #ased

    (. An&ercursin& su&&ests ra&e, not in sco$e#. 8hen seaman suffers injuries from other crewmem#ers, action for unseaworthiness-em$loyer did not own %essel, so no unseaworthiness, #ut could still #e lia#lec. J 26?- master su#ject to lia#ility for intended tortuous harm #y ser%ant for act done

    in sco$e of em$loyment, e%en if unauthoried and unex$ected, M/T(. Comment c- master relie%ed of lia#ility if ser%ant had no intent to act onmaster>s #ehalf, e%en if mad due to e%ents arisin& from em$loyment

    -Eomar cean Trans$ortation ?th Cir. (+*@!- o$erator lia#le for ca$tain>s theft of crude oil fromcar&o

    a. factors of within sco$e of em$loyment(. time, $lace, $ur$ose of act2. similarity of act to authoried acts

    2+

  • 7/26/2019 Admiralty Law Outline_4

    30/51

    1. whether act commonly $erformed #y em$loyer>s ser%ants6. extent de$arture from normal methods?. $re%ious relations #etween $arties@. whether em$loyer would reasona#ly ex$ect such an act would #e $erformed

    -ost res$ondeat su$erior cases in%ol%e ne&li&ence and the lia#ility of a shi$>s o$erator for ne&

    o$eration of %essel- no serious res$ondeat su$erior issue li0ely to arise in such situations

    $. Limited -uties and Le)al Cause

    American ,/port Lines' Inc. . Ale3/ (+*=!, $.2*(

    -;on&shoreman $o0es out eye in state territorial watersa. 8ife can maintain an action for loss of society in state territorial waters, e%en ifhus#and nonfatally hurt#. E"A does not $reclude as not on hi&h seas, ones Act does not $reclude as it is notan exhausti%e list of remedies

    The har#or wor0er was a lasher a#oard the shi$owner>s %essel when he lost an eye, resultin& inthe instant action for dama&es a&ainst the shi$owner #ased on ne&li&ence and unseaworthiness.

    "is res hi&h courta&reed, concludin& that the wife was $ermitted to maintain her claim for loss of society under&eneral maritime law. The /nited tates u$reme Court affirmed, concludin& that &eneralmaritime law did allow the wife of a har#or wor0er injured nonfatally a#oard a %essel in stateterritorial waters to maintain an action for dama&es for the loss of her hus#and>s society, &i%enthat a clear majority of states $ermitted a wife to reco%er dama&es for loss of consortium from$ersonal injury to her hus#and, and that such claims were not $reem$ted #y the Eeath on the"i&h eas Act, 6@ /..C.. )@2, or the ones Act, 6@ /..C.. @**. oreo%er, the jud&ment#elow fell within a cate&orical exce$tion to strict finality.

    -Princi$le has extended to children

    State of LA . +est"an!?thCir. (+*?!, $.2*@

    -Two #oats collided s$illin& oil and PCP, shuttin& down 6== s< miles around sitea. conomic loss unaccom$anied #y $hysical dama&e to a $ro$rietary interest is notreco%era#le in maritime tort- i.e. someone whose restaurant was affected due to lac0 ofseafood cannot sue#. Jo##ins Ery Eoc0- charterer of shi$ could not reco%er a&ainst re$airer who dama&edshi$ for two wee0s for lost time as no $ro$rietary interest in shi$

    -5o reco%ery for $ure economic lossa! Court $oints to Jo#ins Ery Eoc0 rule

    -Cor$us Christie il Gas Co. ?th Cir. (++?!- #ar&e ruined third $arty>s $i$eline and hit

    owner>s $latforma. wner can reco%er for cost of flarin&, #ut not cost of not sellin& &as due to injury to$i$eline- no $ro$rietary interest in $i$eline

    -;i0ely reco%ery of mental an&uish dama&es of seaman limited to injured wor0er or someonewithin one of dan&er

    G. Joint and Seeral Lia"ility' Contri"ution and Indemnity

    -oint tortfeasors jointly and se%erally lia#le for all of P>s dama&es

    1=

  • 7/26/2019 Admiralty Law Outline_4

    31/51

    Cooper Steedorin) Co. . $rit3 7op!e' Inc./ (+)6!, $.2+2

    -Coo$er loaded crates onto shi$ owned #y E and chartered to A in one $ort, in next $ort, washurt when he fell into a hole #etween the crates co%ered #y a $iece of $a$er

    a. General maritime law allows contri#ution #etween joint tortfeasors in non-collision

    cases- exce$tion when "alycon considerations occur(. "alycon- $arty #rou&ht in as third $arty for contri#ution was statutorily$rotected in dama&es it had to &i%e to em$loyee, so contri#ution made no sense

    a. "ere, not statutorily ca$$ed from &ettin& full reco%ery from C as notC>s em$loyee

    #. Contri#ution only for concurrent fault- cannot #rin& someone in if they are strictlylia#le for somethin&, i.e. unseaworthiness, as they are no joint tortfeasor

    he lon&shoreman was injured when he sli$$ed #etween crates of car&o that were loaded #y theste%edore and he initiated a $ersonal injury suit a&ainst the shi$owner and the shi$>s charterercollecti%ely, the shi$!. The shi$ filed a third-$arty com$laint a&ainst the ste%edore and thelon&shoreman>s em$loyer. The trial court determined that the lon&shoreman>s injuries were

    caused #y the ne&li&ence of the shi$ and the ste%edore and that the shi$ was entitled tocontri#ution from the ste%edore in the amount of one-half of the lia#ility to the lon&shoreman.The a$$ellate court affirmed the jud&ment. n certiorari, the Court ruled that the shi$ was$ro$erly awarded contri#ution from the ste%edore. The Court reasoned that #ecause thelon&shoreman could ha%e elected to ma0e the ste%edore #ear its share of the dama&es caused #yits ne&li&ence, there was no reason why the shi$ should not #e accorded the same ri&ht. n thefacts of the case, the Court ruled, no counter%ailin& considerations detracted from the well-esta#lished maritime rule allowin& contri#ution #etween joint tortfeasors.

    -Jule: oint lia#ility and contri#ution still allowed in maritime law

    Mc-ermott' Inc. . Am Clyde

    -5on-settlin& d>s ha%e to $ay their $ro$ortionate share as settlement only reduces claim a&ainstremainin& d>s #y the esa. Eo not &et credit for settlement>s dollar amount- i.e. if non-settlin& d is (=O lia#le on(==, $ays (= no matter what

    A construction accident in the Gulf of exico &a%e rise to this admiralty claim. Petitioner settledwith three defendants. Jes$ondents did not settle and the case went to trial. A jury assessed$etitioner>s loss at R 2.( million and allocated the dama&es #etween res$ondents. The s allocation of $ro$ortionate res$onsi#ility, or #y &i%in& nonsettlin&res$ondents a credit for the dollar amount of the settlement. The court stated that the$ro$ortionate share a$$roach would ha%e made one res$ondent res$onsi#le for $recisely its share

    of dama&es. There was no reason to allocate any shortfall to other defendants who were not$arties to the settlement. ust as other defendants were not entitled to a reduction in lia#ilitywhen $etitioner ne&otiated a &enerous settlement, so they were not res ri& dama&ed >s $i$eline, in re$airin& used a defecti%e $art from ", which caused more

    1(

  • 7/26/2019 Admiralty Law Outline_4

    32/51

    re$airsa. Eoes J ha%e an indemnity or contri#ution claimQ- indemnity &o%erned #y maritimewhich entitles J to full indemnity from manufacturer for ex$enses incurred due todefecti%e $art#. Indemnity cause of action does not accrue until jud&ment is cast on $rimary d on

    $rinci$al demand here jud&ment on J>s lia#ility to !- so claim not #arred #y lachesherec. Choice of law- order

    (. 8hat law &o%erns $rinci$al d>s lia#ility to $rinci$al $a. Admiralty under AA- J lia#le for full cost of necessary and reasona#lere$airs and loss of earnin&s durin& re$airs

    2. 8hat &o%erns TPE>s lia#ility to $rinci$al $a. tatute says state law of what extended state $i$eline would #e ina$$lies- ;a law says " lia#le to

    1. 8hat a$$lies to d>s indemnity claim a&ainst TPEa. Admiralty- #ody of law esta#lishin& an indemnitee>s $rimary lia#ility

    &o%erns his claim for indemnity a&ainst TPE6. aritime indemnity- non-ne&constructi%ely lia#le tortfeasor can indemnify aco-de#tor of actual fault

    d. uter Continental helf ;ands Act- extends laws of /, includin& state law assurro&ate of fed, to su#soil and sea#ed of outer continental shelf and to all installationswhich mi&ht #e erected thereon

    (. Ci%il laws of adjacent state a$$ly- if #oundaries extended

    The drillin& ri& ru$tured a $i$eline, which #elon&ed to a $i$eline com$any, lyin& on a sea#ed. A$art used in re$airin& the $i$eline, which was manufactured #y the manufacturer, failed due to alatent manufacturin& defect. This caused additional ex$ense to the $i$eline com$any. The$i$eline com$any filed an action a&ainst the ri&>s owner, which later settled with the $i$eline

    com$any for all re$air ex$enses, includin& those caused #y the defecti%e $art. The drillin& ri&owner sou&ht indemnity or contri#ution from the manufacturer. The manufacturer sou&ht todismiss the action, which the trial court &ranted #ecause it was time-#arred either under theadmiralty doctrine of laches or #y $rescri$tion, ha%in& #een filed three years after the $rinci$alaction. n a$$eal, the court held that the action was &o%erned #y maritime, rather than &eneral,tort law and that maritime law &ranted the ri& owner the ri&ht to full indemnity from themanufacturer for the ex$enses incurred as a result of the failure of the defecti%e $art. Mecause thecause of action did not accrue until the ri& owner was cast in jud&ment on the $rinci$al demand,laches did not #ar the action.

    Cities Serice Co. . Lee&ac' Ltd.?thCir. (+*?!, $.1=@

    -Tort indemnity arises in three situations(. Jelationshi$ of indemnitor to indemnitee and duty oweda. 'ederal arine- shi$ owner had to indemnify a ste%edorin& co for $ayment towidow after ste%edore hurt on shi$

    (. s$ecial duty- shi$ owner had duty of care not to injure any of co>slon&shoremen

    2. Moth lia#le, #ut si&nificant difference in $arties> conducta. Tri-tate il- where owner>s lia#ility #ased on $assi%e conduct, i.e. allowin&

    12

  • 7/26/2019 Admiralty Law Outline_4

    33/51

    unseaworthiness to continue, and contractor>s #ased on actual conduct, i.e.installin& defecti%e ele%ator that caused injury, owner indemnified

    1. Eifference in character of duty owed to injured $artya. a%oie- seaman>s em$loyer owes s$ecial duty of maintenance and cure if#ecomes disa#led, re&ardless of em$loyer>s fault

    (. innocent em$loyer- indemnified #y ne& third $arty that caused injury

    Loose . Offshore (ai)ation' Inc.?thCir. (+*2!, $.1=*

    -Com$arati%e fault re$laces acti%e-$assi%e indemnity test, so dama&es a$$ortioned on #asis ofde&ree of res$onsi#ility

    -aster indemnifies shi$ owner for dama&e to %essel from collision when master has actualfault- reco%ery limited to O of loss solely caused #y master>s fault, ne& of crew not attri#uted tomaster-eaman cannot sue co-em$loyee for ne&li&ently causin& $ersonal injury - owner cannot see0indemnity from co-em$loyee-If A #uys su# with defect from M and hires C, who ne& misses defect, to ins$ect- #oth M and C

    can #e sued for indemnity to $ay for dama&es to E caused #y defect-8arranty of wor0manli0e $erformance- indemnitee can reco%er attorney>s fees from indemnitorfor cost of defendin& a&ainst third $arty, #ut not for cost of esta#lishin& lia#ility #etweenindemnitee and indemnitor

    a. Cannot #e in%o0ed a&ainst maritime em$loyer to reco%er dama&es $aid due to injury tomaritime em$loyee

    =II. Collision

    -8hen %essel on water hits somethin&A. General Collision Law Principles

    &Kuestion is whether $erson o$eratin& %essel acted as a reasona#ly $rudent mariner under the

    circumstances

    +he Jumna2d Cir. (+=@!, $.1(2

    -In either ine%ita#le or inscruta#le there is no reco%ery, losses are #orne #y $arty on whom theyfall

    a. Ine%ita#le accident- $arty char&ed with collision could not $ossi#ly $re%ent it #yexercise of ordinary care, caution, and maritime s0ill

    (. Generally caused #y act of God or unforeseea#le e%ent#. Inscruta#le accident- e%idence is so conflictin& that it is im$ossi#le to determine towhat direct and s$ecific acts the collision is attri#uta#le

    -Could the collision ha%e #een $re%ented #y the exercise of ordinary care, caution and maritime

    s0ill-Eifficult in today9s day and a&e to not ha%e fault #c can see throu&h fo&, dar0ness, etc

    At!ins . Lorent3en?thCir. (+@6!, $.1(6

    -heer- de%iation from line of course in which a %essel should #e steered, sometimesun$re%enta#le, most of time due to unsteady steerer

    (. Presum$tion of ne& for sheerin& %essel in collisions-Collision lia#ility #ased on fault- when one $arty $resum$ti%ely ne&, #urden of $ro%in& cause of

    11

  • 7/26/2019 Admiralty Law Outline_4

    34/51

    accident in no way resulted from failure of their due care

    -Tort law &enerally considers that an emer&ency not of one9s own ma0in& is a circumstance to #econsidered in determinin& whether a $erson acted reasona#le, in maritime this doctrine is 3errorsin extremis4-The %essel that sheered #ears #urden of $roof to show that they were not ne&li&ent

    *ood . 7nappton Corp.' Inc. +thCir. (++1!, $. 1(?

    -The ;ouisiana (*@?!- unmoored %essel that drifts into a collision is $resumed to #e at fault,$resum$ti%ely lia#le unless affirmati%ely shows driftin& result of ine%ita#le accident or act ofGod, which human s0ill$recision could not $re%ent

    (. hifts #urden of $roduction and $ersuasion to d-;ouisiana rule can shift #oth #urdens e%en if contrary to 'ed. J. %id.- rule is $rocedural #utlin0ed to su#stanti%e &oal of maritime law

    -/nderLouisiana, unmoored %essel that drifts #ears #urden of $roof-%en if 'ederal %idence Jule conflicts w admiralty law, admiralty law trum$s #c existed$rior to 'ed % Jule and ha%e a distinct $ur$ose

    -rror in extremis doctrine- if %essel, without her own fault, $laced in sudden dan&er, notcondemned if ta0es erroneous action-Hessel owner lia#le in $ersonam for collisions under res$ondeat su$erior- not %icariously lia#lefor tort of com$ulsory $ilot not em$loyee!, althou&h %essel lia#le in rem

    a. aster cannot dele&ate res$onsi#ility to $ilot

    B. Statutory $ault

    +o!io Marine 0 $ire Ins. . $lora?thCir. 2==(!, $.12?

    -Pennsyl%ania rule a$$lies only to statutes that delineate a clear le&al duty, not one that re

  • 7/26/2019 Admiralty Law Outline_4

    35/51

    -'ailure to use radar effecti%ely tri&&ers Pennsyl%ania

    C. -ama)es

    Standard Oil Co. of (J . Southern Pacific/ (+2?!, $. 12)

    -Eama&es meant to ma0e injured $arty wholereturn to status

  • 7/26/2019 Admiralty Law Outline_4

    36/51

    2. If / remo%es, owner must reim#urse1. ;ia#le to third $ersons dama&ed #y failure to mar0remo%e- e%en if no fault insin0in&

    -Protection Indemnity co%ers wrec0 remo%al that is com$ulsory #y law - com$ulsory ifreasona#le owner would thin0 #usted if didn>t remo%e

    =III. #or!er In?uries Seamen

    -ones Act $ro%ides for maintenance and cure, other com$ensatory dama&es, allows for jurytrials exce$t a&ainst &o%9t-Maintenanceis the daily $ayment necessary to com$ensate a seaman for room and #oard&enerally furnished a#oard the %essel. aintenance commences on the date on which a seamanlea%es the %essel, not the date of his injury or illness.-Cure is a seaman>s ri&ht to medical treatment. A seaman>s ri&ht to cure also continues until he isfit for duty or reaches maximum medical sta#ility.

    A. -etermination of Seaman Status

    Mc-ermott Int%l' Inc. . #ilander/ (++(!, $.116-eaman statusa. eaman- must #e em$loyed on #oard %essel in furtherance of its $ur$ose, nores doctor as the shi$ left

    $ort. The doctor dia&nosed a sus$ected detached retina #ut failed to trans$ort the en&ineer ashorefor $rom$t medical care. The Court of A$$eals %acated the jud&ment #ecause the trial courtim$ro$erly framed the issue of seaman status for the jury. The a$$ellate court &ranted certiorarito resol%e the continuin& conflict re&ardin& the re

  • 7/26/2019 Admiralty Law Outline_4

    37/51

    Two elements to seaman status: (! An em$loyee9s duties must contri#ute to the function of the%essel or to the accom$lishment of its mission and 2! A seaman must ha%e a connection to a%essel in na%i&ation or to an identifia#le &rou$ of such %essels! that is su#stantial in terms of#oth its duration and its nature-;ess than 1=O is unsu#stantial not hard and fast rule, one still doesn9t exist!F facts #ecome %ery

    im$ortant-ust an office &uy who ha$$ens to #e on#oard now and then

    *ar"or +u) and Bar)e Company . Papai/ (++)!, $.1??

    -Identifia#le fleet res motion for reconsideration. The court of a$$eals re%ersed andremanded the order for a trial of the $ainter>s seaman status and his corres$ondin& ones Act andunseaworthiness claims. n certiorari, the Court held that the essential res duties must ha%e contri#uted to the function of the %esselor to the accom$lishment of the mission, and second, the seaman must ha%e had a connection toa %essel in na%i&ation that was su#stantial in terms of #oth its duration and its nature. The Courtheld that as the $ainter was hired to $aint for one day and that was not sufficient to esta#lishseaman status under the &rou$ of %essels conce$t.

    -Com$ulsory $ilot- unless wor0s only on one %essel, $ro#a#ly an IC, meanin& cannot &o after%essel o$erator for ones Act

    -P on yacht for only one day is seaman if re&ularly hired #y others as yachtsmen-Traditional maritime wor0ers are not denied seaman status merely due to contractual relationsmade #y their em$loyer- when em$loyers contract them out to shi$s not under commonownershi$-8aitress on ri%er#oat casino that went out on water- seaman-Ei%ers considered seaman e%en if not connected to fleet

    B. Seaman%s 1emedies

    +he Osceola/ (+=1!, $.1@1

    (. Hessel and owners lia#le for injury to seaman in ser%ice of shi$ to extent of maintenance andcure and lost wa&es

    2. Hessel and owners lia#le for full indemnity if injury due to unseaworthiness of shi$1. All mem#ers of crew, with $ossi#le exce$tion of master, are fellow ser%ants- cannot reco%er#eyond maintenance and cure for injuries due to other crew mem#er6. eaman not allowed full indemnity for ne& of master or any other mem#er of crew

    @. Maintenance and Cure

    Solet . Capt. *. . -ufrene .E.;a. (+@+!, $.1@6

    -/se same standard in determinin& if owe mc as if determinin& if em$loyer under ones Act

    1)

  • 7/26/2019 Admiralty Law Outline_4

    38/51

    a. %en if cannot &et mc from owner, can &o after shi$ in rem

    #arren . 6S/ (+?(!, $.1@@

    -eaman on shore, drin0s too much, falls off led&e after tryin& to &ra# led&ea. xce$tion for reco%ery if injury due to willful act or default- enforced #y &eneral

    maritime law#. "ere, conduct was not willful, just ne&c. eaman was in duty to shi$- maintenance and cure extends to injuries occurrin& whileseaman is de$artin& or returnin& to shi$ from shore lea%e, e%en thou&h at time no duty toshi$

    (. eaman only on lea%e due to %oya&e

    -eaman &enerally will #e considered in the ser%ice of the shi$ if he9s injured while on duty oroff duty, or if he is injured while he is off the %essel #ut on duty

    7oistinen . American ,/port Lines/ (+6*!, $.1)=

    -Courts %ery li#eral towards injuries recei%ed on shore lea%e as lon& as not due to drun0 or

    deli#erate acts of indiscretion8hile on shore lea%e the seaman had a few drin0s and then was lured to a woman>s room. "ewas loc0ed in the room after the woman attem$ted to ro# him. The seaman esca$ed #y jum$in&out the window, he did not exit throu&h the door #ecause it was #loc0ed #y the suddena$$earance of a man with a menacin& mien. The seaman was hos$italied for his resultin&injuries. "e filed an action a&ainst the shi$ o$erator see0in& maintenance. The o$erator filed amotion to dismiss, contendin& that the claim was founded in immoralityF and that durin& all thetimes in%ol%ed the /nited tates was the owner of the shi$ and, therefore, was exclusi%ely lia#le.The court entered jud&ment in the seaman>s fa%or. The court held that #ecause the seaman wasnot a$$ried of the o$erator>s status as a&ent for the &o%ernment, he could not ha%e #eende$ri%ed of his ri&hts a&ainst the o$erator, as a&ent of an undisclosed $rinci$al. The court found

    that the seaman>s injuries were not the result of intoxication, wilful mis#eha%ior, a deli#erate actof indiscretion, or &ross ne&li&ence. Althou&h the seaman>s immoral indiscretion first $ut him inthe woman>s room it did not im$el him to jum$ from the window.

    incent . *arey #ell Serice?thCir. (+)(!, $.1)1

    -ones Act and mc reco%ery jurisdiction not does de$end on where accident ha$$ens, #ut onnature of ser%ice and it relationshi$ to o$eration of the %essel

    a. m$loyees injured in car crash where em$loyer su$$lied car and dri%er for off-dutytrans$ort to wor0- can reco%er, in course of em$loyment

    -Generally, courts ser%ice of the shi$ w course and sco$e of em$loyment, which is a $rere

  • 7/26/2019 Admiralty Law Outline_4

    39/51

    -Ji&ht to reco%er mc a$$lies to illnesses that manifest themsel%es durin& em$loyment e%en ifnot caused #y em$loyment, and to illness which caused sym$toms durin& em$loyment e%en ifnot dia&nosed until after em$loyment terminated

    . 6nseaworthiness

    -wed to seaman, not $assen&ers-eaworhty: ound condition of the %essel ena#lin& it to successfully meet all the %aryin&conditions of sea, wind, and weather normally to #e ex$ected on the %oya&e.

    Colon . +rinidad Corp.E57 (+@=!, $.6(+

    -tandard is not $erfection, #ut reasona#le fit, accidents ha$$ena. eaman not a#solutely entitled to a dec0 that is not sli$$ery, is a#solutely entitled to adec0 that is not unreasona#ly sli$$ery

    ar)as . Mc(amara(stCir. (+)+!, $.62=

    -/nseaworthiness is strict lia#ility

    a. /nseaworthiness- can arise from em$loyment of unsafe method of wor0, i.e. not$ro%idin& ade

  • 7/26/2019 Admiralty Law Outline_4

    40/51

    -s$ %icious crewmem#er can render %essel unseaworthy- e%en if attac0 not un$ro%o0ed-Com$arati%e fault reduces reco%ery for unseaworthiness

    . (e)li)ence and the Jones Act

    -eaman has same ne& cause of action that railroad wor0er has under ';A

    -6@ A$$. /..C. @** ones Act! - A seaman injured in the course of em$loyment or, if theseaman dies from the injury, the $ersonal re$resentati%e of the seaman may elect to #rin& a ci%ilaction at law, with the ri&ht of trial #y jury, a&ainst the em$loyer. ;aws of the /nited tatesre&ulatin& reco%ery for $ersonal injury to, or death of, a railway em$loyee a$$ly to an actionunder this section.

    Johansen . 6S/ (+?2!, $.62*

    - 'ederal m$loyment Com$ensation Act is exclusi%e remedy for ci%ilian seaman on $u#lic%essels

    olyra!is . Isa"elle?thCir. (+*2!, $.62+

    -ones Act re

  • 7/26/2019 Admiralty Law Outline_4

    41/51

    (. A&ent- $erson, under contract, durin& o$erational acti%ities of em$loyer2. ones Act incor$orates ';A

    #. "oldin&- &ettin& men to consul $art of o$erational acti%ities as had to #y law, masterchose ne& dri%er, so should #ear that res$onsi#ility, em$loyer lia#le under ones Act

    -If an em$loyer %iolates any safety statute, then the em$loyer is lia#le e%en wo a showin& of

    ne&li&ence. nly where the em$loyer %iolates a safety statute which was desi&ned to $rotectem$loyees does ?1 $reclude consideration of the injured em$loyee9s contri#utory ne&li&ence

    +olar . 7insman Marine +ransit Co.@thCir. (+*=!, $.6?2

    -Contri#utory ne& res failure to file suit

    -5o misre$resentations made to the P here, case fails #c of o;

    -Cannot reco%er for emotional distress for inhalin& as#estos if show no si&ns of disease-eaman>s s$ouse cannot reco%er loss of consortium under ones Act- can under unseaworthiness-If em$loyer hires inde$endent contractor IC! to use em$loyees for em$loyer>s #enefit then IC>sne& im$uted to em$loyer- not if for IC>s interest-5o contri#utory ne& when seaman carryin& out orders e%en if 0nows dan&erous

    -ones Act and all other torts ha%e 1 yr o; from when action accruesa. Time of e%ent rule- when some injury discerna#le when tort occurs, a$$lies if someo#%i some latent#. Eisco%ery rule- a$$lies when P sustains latent injury, accrues when $ disco%ers orreasona#ly should disco%er #oth injury and its cause

    -;aches- when P unreasona#le in delay and $rejudices d, claim will #e #arred as stale, e%en if noo;, o; creates $resum$tion of laches

    =I. #or!er In?uries4 Maritime #or!ers and Others

    A. L*#CA Coera)e Beyond Miles

    -61 /..C. (111 The uter Continental helf ;ands Act! extends ;"8CA to the shelf

    Mills . -irector' Office of #or!ers% Comp.?thCir. (+*+!, $.6*+

    -ills tries to claim ;"8CA is extended to uter Continental helf ;ands Act C;A! forwor0in& on offshore $latform while it is onshore

    a. itus re

  • 7/26/2019 Admiralty Law Outline_4

    42/51

    -8or0in& on a ri& onshore that is &oin& to &o to sea, injured-Com$ensation #oard found for him #c #ut for o$erations on the outercontinental shelf, hewouldn9t ha%e #e injured-Court finds that he needed to #e on the C to reco%er-8asn9t co%ered under the ;"8CA #c he wasn9t su$$ortin& a %essel in any way

    -That9s why $roceedin& is under state wor0ers com$ensation statute

    1eynolds . In)alls Ship"uildin) -i.' Litton Sys.' Inc?thCir. (+*@!, $.6+6

    -J did land #ased fittin& wor0, #ut his em$loyer contracted with 5a%y to do seaworthiness tests,so on shi$, sli$$ed on wet floor

    a. Co%ered #y ;"8CA- #ein& co%ered #y this $recludes ones Act

    -li$s on water on a shi$-Kualifies under ;"8CA not ones Act e%en thou&h #eyond 1 miles-(2 miles are territorial waters-Third Circuit disa&rees with ills- allowed man injured in motorcycle accident on way tohelico$ter to &o to ri& could reco%er ;"8CA extended %ia C;A #ecause #ut for tra%elin&

    to ri&, no injuries-Territorial waters of / declared to #e 26 miles from shore- Cer%i says only (2 for most$ur$oses

    B. L*#CA Coera)e within miles

    (ortheast Marine +erminal . Caputo/ (+))!, $.?==

    -Two lon&shoremen in union, one sli$s on ice, one hurt rollin& cheese dolly, #oth on doc0a. Two $ron& test- situs and status sco$e of em$loyment!

    (. "a%e to #e doin& at least

  • 7/26/2019 Admiralty Law Outline_4

    43/51

    a. Co%ered- do not need a su#stantial $ortion of wor0 to satisfy status, just some $art hasto #e maritime. ust need some $ortion of wor0 as an lon&shoreman, not a su#stantial$ortion

    -irector' Office of #or!ers% Comp. . Perini Associates/ (+*1!, $.?(6

    The director claimed the em$loyee was not re

  • 7/26/2019 Admiralty Law Outline_4

    44/51

    -Courtesy %an dri%er who dro%e execs around a doc0 and only occasionally dro%e lon&shoremanis not co%ered-6th Cir has held that adjoinin& means touches water and adjoinin& area must #e discreteshoreside structure or facility-'oreman of har#or facility who had to &et o%ertime wor0ers dinner not co%ered when hit on a

    $u#lic hi&hway (.? miles from facility and se$arated #y residential nei&h#orhood from nearestmaritime terminal

    =. #ron)ful -eath and Surial Actions

    A. -eath on the *i)h Seas Act

    Offshore Lo)istics' Inc. . +ellentire/ (+*@!, $.@@1

    -Two men who wor0 on $latform die in helico$ter crash 1? miles from shorea. 8hen E"A a$$lies, state wron&ful death law cannot #e used#. C;A a$$lies fed law and not inconsistent state law-

    The com$any contended that E"A $ro%ided the exclusi%e remedy #y which the sur%i%ors

    could ha%e reco%ered a&ainst it for the wron&ful death of their hus#ands. The u$reme Courtre%ersed the decision of the a$$ellate court and remanded for further $roceedin&s. Mecause thefatalities underlyin& this suit did not arise from an accident in the area co%ered #y the uterContinental helf ;ands Act, 61 /..C.. (11( et se

  • 7/26/2019 Admiralty Law Outline_4

    45/51

    wife, hus#and, $arent, child, or de$endent relati%e a&ainst whoe%er would #e lia#le ifdeath had not occurred

    (. Eoesn9t include commercial fli&hts within (2 nautical miles of a state#. )@2- Can reco%er $ecuniary losses, for fli&hts more than (2 can also reco%er non-$ecuniary

    (. 5on-$ecuniary- loss of care, comfort, com$anionshi$c. )@@- contri#utory ne& does not #ar, reduces dama&es

    =I.Marine InsuranceA. Goernin) Law

    *ealy +i""itts Construction Co. . $oremost Ins.Calif. (+)+!, $.@+=

    -8hen well-settled fed admiralty rule a$$lies to marine ins, use that, otherwise use state lawa. /se fed choice of law - use law of state with most si&nificant nexus to contract

    (. 5exus- consider where $olicy issued, where deli%ered, where ris0 is located,which state has most si&nificant relationshi$

    -arine insurance should #e &o%erned #y federal admiralty law $ro%ided that there is a well-settled a$$lica#le federal statute. 8il#urn Moat.-"owe%er, in the instant case there is no esta#lished rule dealin& w a $olicy9s notice $ro%isionand with the E9s esto$$el claim, therefore state law should a$$ly

    -Al#any Ins. Co. ?th Cir. (++(!- factors to consider if a$$ly fed:a. Is fed rule entrenched fed $recedent#. tate has le&it and su#stantial interest in a$$lication of its lawc. tate>s rule materially differentd. "ere, u#erima fidei not firmly entrenched, so state- Circuits s$lit

    (. /#erima fidei- material misre$resentation in%alidates $olicy re&ardless of

    whether misre$resentation affected destruction of insured $ro$ertya. Mased on duty of utmost &ood faith#. 8hen insurer sends out a$$lication- insured has ri&ht to assume allrele%ant

  • 7/26/2019 Admiralty Law Outline_4

    46/51

    Shaer +ransportation Co. . +raellers IndemnitiyE.r. (+)+!, $.@+2

    'acts: ha%er, a #ar&e com$any, contracted w 8eyerhaeuser to trans$ort caustic soda to its#uyer, GATB. ha%er arran&ed for marine insurance with Tra%ellers, o#tainin& 'ree fromParticular A%era&e and standard $erils $ro%isions su$$lemented w s$ecially to co%er clause.GATB refused deli%ery of the soda #c it had #een contaminated #y tallow when ha%er loaded

    the soda into the #ar&e #ar&e in$ut lines hadn9t #een thorou&hly cleaned!.

    -Issue here is whether the losses incurred are the conses 'und Ins. ((th Cir. 2==(!-

    6@

  • 7/26/2019 Admiralty Law Outline_4

    47/51

    a. All ris0 hull $olicy- once insured esta#lishes a$$arently co%ered, insurer has #urdento show exce$tion a$$lies#. 5amed $erils- insured has to show it is enumerated $eril

    -Thanh ;on&- ty$ical marine ins dis$utea. Inchmaree cl- adds some thin&s to $eril cl

    (. 5e& of master- ca%eat of owner ha%in& to use due care2. ;atent defects in %essel itself#. "ere, owner %iolated im$lied duty of due careseaworthiness, so no Inchmaree- did notha%e #il&e alarm also %iolated ex$ress cl to ha%e!, ha%e to #e seaworthy at ince$tion

    -A#andonment- cost of re$airs &reater than half %alue of %essel, insured can a#andon as a totalloss-cuttle- intentionally sin0 own shi$ to reco%er-At #e&innin& of hull $olicy, there is a&reed %alue for %essel- total loss of %essel is worth a&reedamount

    C. +hird Party Lia"ility P0I Policy

    -PI co%ers death, injury, collision dama&e to other %essels and certain shoreside installations,cost of wrec0 remo%al, and loss of car&o

    Crown Deller"ach . In)ram?thCir. (+*@!, $.)==

    -Kuestion here is whether the PI underwriter is lia#le in excess of the assured shi$owner9sadmitted limited lia#ility a! "old that that is not the case and o%errule 5e#el Towin&-It is fair for the insurance $olicy to only $ay (==O of the assured9s lia#ility

    -Ins contract says that PI $olicy to amount insured would #e lia#le u$on successfullymaintainin& limitation on lia#ility

    a. PI cannot #e lia#le in excess of an owner>s limited lia#ility - when $olicy itself limits

    reco%ery to such-ther ins. cl- when same incident co%ered #y more than one $olicya. sto$$el cl- $olicy does not a$$ly#. xcess cl- will $ay dama&es o%er those co%ered #y other $olicyc. Pro rata cl- will $ay losses $ro$ortionate to O of a%aila#le insd. Go%erned #y state law- when #oth ha%e esca$e, cts $rorate

    -Ty$ically a&ent wor0s for com$any and the #ro0er wor0s for you-'irst $arty insurance is co%erin& a loss #y the insured-1rd$arty insurance is $rotectin& the $olicy holder from le&al lia#ility from a 1rd$arty-There are PI clu#s where indi%idual %essel owners &rou$ to&ether and $ool funds to deal with$otential losses

    -1 ways to insure that de%elo$ed under maritime law: (! ;loyd9s syndicate system, 2!Traditional stoc0 com$anies, and 1! PI clu#s-All-Jis0 $olicy is what we are most used to different than Perils $olicy!F says it co%ere%erythin& #ut this and this, while a $erils $olicy says it co%er this and this #ut nothin& else-8hen you disa&ree with the insurance carrier a#out who is co%ered three outcomes: (!Ar#itration $ro%ision, 2! 7ou sue them, or 1! They sue you for declaratory jud&ment-8il#urn: arine insurance rules should #e resol%ed in state court unless there is an entrenchedfederal $recedent

    6)

  • 7/26/2019 Admiralty Law Outline_4

    48/51

    a! Masically just restated in "ealy Ti###itts-General maritime law is the federally de%elo$ed common lawF no federal marine insurancestatutes thou&h there are many other federal marine statutes Mritish ha%e a marine insurancestatute!-'or a marine insurance $ro#lem you must: (! Jead the whole $olicy and 2! 'i&ure out what

    law a$$lies-'or determinin& which state, loo0 to the state with the most si&nificant nexus where was itsi&nedQ, etc!-)berrima (ideidoctrine of utmost &ood faith! S $ossi#ly could #e %oided if $arties don9t deal inthe utmost &ood faith no undisclosed facts or misre$resentations!

    a! A tou&h rule, in / de$ends on materialitycausality no