Opinion ID: 2626358
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Federal Preeminence Over Maritime Law

Text: The applicability of state law, even in state court, is not to be assumed in a maritime case. This suit arises from a tort occurring on the high seas, and involves the interpretation of a maritime contract. As such, both the tort and the contract are subject to federal maritime law. [1] Shute, 499 U.S. at 590, 111 S.Ct. at 1526, 113 L.Ed.2d at 629; Kermarec, 358 U.S. at 628, 79 S.Ct. at 408, 3 L.Ed.2d at 553. In the present case, this is not a matter of dispute  even Fisk concedes that under these facts federal maritime law applies. Fisk, however, nevertheless argues that here the Court may look to Idaho law as well. Federal preeminence in the sphere of maritime law was established in the United States Constitution's provision that federal judicial power shall extend to all cases ... of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. State courts may try cases at admiralty, but when doing so are obligated to apply federal maritime law rather than state law. Kermarec, 358 U.S. at 628, 79 S.Ct. at 408, 3 L.Ed.2d at 553; Lurie v. Norwegian Cruise Lines, Ltd., 305 F.Supp.2d 352, 356 (S.D.N.Y.2004) (stating that regardless of the choice of forum or basis of subject matter jurisdiction, disputes relating to maritime contracts and injuries sustained aboard ship are governed by federal maritime law.).