Opinion ID: 702303
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admiralty Jurisdiction Under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1333

Text: 65 Plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants allege violations of the general maritime law duty to provide a seaworthy vessel. Again, although the Lauritzen factors are to be used in determining the applicability of substantive American maritime law, they do not go to subject matter jurisdiction. Rather, for non-statutory causes of action, we apply the customary admiralty jurisdiction analysis of Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, 409 U.S. 249, 93 S.Ct. 493, 34 L.Ed.2d 454 (1972), Foremost Insurance Co. v. Richardson, 457 U.S. 668, 102 S.Ct. 2654, 73 L.Ed.2d 300 (1982), and Sisson v. Ruby, 497 U.S. 358, 110 S.Ct. 2892, 111 L.Ed.2d 292 (1990), as recently reaffirmed in Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 1043, 130 L.Ed.2d 1024 (1995). 66 [A] party seeking to invoke federal admiralty jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1333(1) over a tort claim must satisfy conditions both of location and of connection with maritime activity. Id. at ----, 115 S.Ct. at 1048. For tort claims, the locality test requires that the tort occurred on navigable water or ... injury suffered on land was caused by a vessel on navigable water. Id. Here, the locality test is readily satisfied, id. at ----, 115 S.Ct. at 1049, for plaintiff's injuries occurred in navigable waters and were caused there by a vessel, see id. at ----, 115 S.Ct. at 1048. 67 The maritime connection inquiry is two-fold. First, we assess the general features of the type of incident involved to determine whether the incident has a potentially disrupting impact on maritime commerce. Id. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Second, we determine whether the general character of the activity giving rise to the incident shows a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity. Id. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). 68 With respect to the potential disruption prong, we describe the incident at an intermediate level of possible generality. Id. at ----, 115 S.Ct. at 1051. Following the Supreme Court's lead, the general features of the incident at issue here may be described as damage by a vessel in navigable water to [a seaman]. Id. 8 So characterized, ... this is the kind of incident that has a potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce. Id. Injury to a seaman in navigable waters could lead to restrictions on the navigational use of the waterway, id., during necessary investigations into the accident, which could be especially lengthy in a case where the seaman's injuries proved fatal. Additionally, a vessel's need to replace an incapacitated seaman could lead to delays in commercial shipping. Although this case involves a pleasure boat rather than a vessel engaged in commercial shipping, that fact does not affect the jurisdictional result. In Sisson v. Ruby, the features of the incident were described as a fire on a vessel docked at a marina on navigable waters, 497 U.S. at 363, 110 S.Ct. at 2896, even though the vessel was a pleasure boat. 69 The second prong of the maritime connection test is also easily met here. In the second Sisson enquiry, we look to whether the general character of the activity giving rise to the incident shows a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity. Jerome B. Grubart, Inc., --- U.S. at ----, 115 S.Ct. at 1051. Navigation of boats in navigable waters clearly falls within the substantial relationship.... Id. Thus, the travels of the Long John qualify despite the short distances involved in its voyages. Cf. Sinclair v. Soniform, Inc., 935 F.2d 599, 600 (3d Cir.1991) (upholding admiralty jurisdiction over claim arising from failure of crew of vessel that transported plaintiff to detect symptoms of and administer proper care for decompression sickness suffered during scuba diving investigation in navigable waters); see also 1 STEVEN F. FREIDELL, BENEDICT ON ADMIRALTY Sec. 171, at 11-22 to -23 nn. 54-56 (7th ed. rev. 1995) (citing cases finding admiralty jurisdiction over claims that navigation errors or negligent operation of vessel injured others) [hereinafter BENEDICT ON ADMIRALTY]. Since the locality and maritime connection tests were clearly met, the district court had admiralty jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims. 9 70