Opinion ID: 2625884
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Applicable law to be applied on remand

Text: Appellants argue that the district court improperly applied admiralty law instead of Nevada law to the proceedings below. We agree. In Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., [19] the United States Supreme Court established a two-part location and connection test for determining when the exercise of federal maritime jurisdiction is appropriate. [20] Under the location leg of this test, a court must determine whether the tort occurred on navigable water or ... [the] injury suffered on land was caused by a vessel on navigable water. [21] Although the location prong of the test is satisfied in this instance, the connection prong is not. One feature of the connection test requires an analysis of the general features of the incident causing the injury to determine whether the incident has `a potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce.' [22] We conclude that the incident in question here had no potential for disruption of maritime commerce on the Lake Mead Reservoir. Gasse and Lewis were occupants of a single pleasure boat moored in an isolated location at night. Thus, there is no basis to apply admiralty law to this controversy in lieu of Nevada law. [23]