Two pleasure boats crash. They are fishing boats for pleasure. There’s also a water ski boat. A person dies in the crash. Rule Traditional maritime activity doesn’t have to be a commercial one. The Executive Jet test doesn’t mean that the connection with traditional maritime activity is an exclusive commercial one. The Executive Jet test applies to all vessels without regard to their commercial or noncommercial nature. The party seeking to invoke maritime jurisdiction must show a substantial relationship between the activity giving rise to the incident and traditional maritime activity, but it doesn’t have to be a commercial one. The admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the shall extend to and include all cases of damage or injury if it had a disruptive impact on maritime commerce Class notes: The district court concluded that it wasn’t admiralty jurisdiction. Why did the Supreme Court take this case? Some of the justices thought it was absurd that this case would be in admiralty jurisdiction. However, Justice Marshall wrote it. He was a great admiralty jurisdictions justices. If we assume that the river is navigable, then we fall in the locality requirement. But, this wasn’t a problem. It was easy to determine the locality rule. Once we satisfy the locality rule, then we look at Executive Jet which established that only locality wasn’t enough, that a maritime nexus is also needed. Justice Marshall didn’t say that executive jet was wrong, but he just added to it. He added that the traditional maritime activity didn’t have to be a commercial one. Sisson v Ruby Supreme Court 1990 by Justice Marshall Pg. 44 Fire in a marine set out by a yacht. Rule It adds to the Executive and Foremost test: “Potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce”. The Sisson test added to the other tests, held that the admiralty jurisdiction would extend to such cases if: in addition to situs (Locality) the activity giving rise to the incident bears a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity (doesn’t have to be a commercial one). the incident poses a potential hazard to maritime commerce (which is ambiguous), and Class: There is subject matter jurisdiction for liability action. So, the district court has jurisdiction over Sisson’s limitation claim. adds that there has to be “Potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce to determine the locality test”.
Pendant jurisdiction is not obligatory. It is a doctrine of discretion. …. Supplemental jurisdiction is very convenient in admiralty cases and the courts use it without questioning its applicability. 76-91 Maritime cases in state courts The Moses Taylor There is concurrent jurisdiction between federal and state court. The plaintiff can go to a federal court with admiralty jurisdiction or staying in federal with diversity jurisdiction or he can go to state court. It nails down the concept that an in rem action can only be brought in a federal court. The ss ss clause didn’t apply because it’s an action in rem. The action in rem is a civil law remedy not a common law remedy. Because not common law remedy not saved by “savings to suitors” clause Only common law remedies are “saving to suitors” clause. The Lewis v Lewis & Clark Marine MISSING OUTLINE Note on the Removal of Maritime Cases You get sued in state court and you get it removed to a federal court. General maritime law won’t change. You can get a different kind of jury. Why is removal important? If you don’t like the judge or the jury then you could ask for removal. It’s very used in practice for those reasons. You can remove because of diversity. If it’s admiralty case, can you remove it to a federal court? Just because it’s admiralty you can’t remove it. The mere existence of admiralty jurisdiction gives a legitimates basis for removal. Diversity jurisdiction is good for removal. If there’s a case brought in state court that has admiralty jurisdiction can you remove the case? You cannot remove a Jones Act case because Congress wanted to give the right to choose the form and keep it. So, Jones Act cases have to stay in State Court. If you have a maritime case you can remove it. If you have an admiralty case the removal will not affect the law that applies. It only affects the forum. Garret v Moore-McCormack Co.
The goods were damaged in transit and Monica brought suit. The carrier invoked liability to $500 pursuant to the COGSA liability limitation provision. Rationale Meaning of Package: Although there is no definition for package, the courts refer to the intent of the contracting parties, when it is clear and reasonable. Standard Electrica case: the pallet is the relevant package. Leathers best case: The “container revolution” added a new dimension to the problem and “package” is thus more sensibly related to the unit in which the shipper packe d the goods and described them than to a large metal object in which the carrier caused them to be “contained”. So, a container rarely should be treated as a package. Functional economic test was inconsistent with Leather’s belts. Mitsui decision: when a bill of lading discloses on its face what is inside the container and those contents may reasonably be considered COGSA packages, then the container is not the COGSA package. This case has been followed by other courts. Class notes: The general rule is that the container is not he package, normally look at how many packages are inside the container. The BOL normally states how many packages are inside the container. It is still open to the parties if the container is a package. The best description of how many packages there are is the BOL Choice of Forum and Law The usual rule is that in maritime cases, clauses in BOL that provide choice of law or forum will be enforced. Even in passenger ship contracts, choice of law or choice of forum are enforceable. Vimar Seguros y Reaseguros v The Sky Reefer The arbitration clause provided was in . The court enforced the arbitration clause. The argument against it, says that there’s a provision in COGSA that you can’t have a clause that will lessen the carrier’s liability and this clause would do it. The clause says “any dispute arising from this BOL shall be refered to arbitration in ” the clause also said “ the contract evidenced by or contained in this BOL shall be governed by the Japanese Law”. An issue in this case was that Japanese court might not apply the COGSA properly and that the costs would be higher. So, it doesn’t even states that you’re going to a court in . The court retains jurisdiction in this case. The cargo was going from to . Marine insurance
Jones act means negligence. It’s a negligence remedy. Besides the jones act claim, the seaman usually has an unseaworthiness claim. The Jones Act modified common law by creating a cause of action for injury or death caused by negligence of the ship owner, the master or crew members. The Jones Act was designed to change the negligence issues. The seaman can recover if he can show that negligence had “any” part in causing the injury or deat. “any part” could even be a 1%, but there still has to be negligent. Jury: The Jones act also provides a jury trial. The jury will decide the Jones act claim and the general maritime law claims. Other actions on their own (non-Jones act) wouldn’t require a jury, so if they are failed with Jones Act claims they get a jury. Comparative negligence test: the contributory negligence was abolished, but in comparative negligence basis the damages could be reduced by the percentage of the seaman’s negligent. Statute of Limitations: 3 years from the day the injury or death occurs. Jurisdiction: The district court and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction and the plaintiff can choose the forum. If the plaintiff selects the forum there’s no right for removal. Vessel not liable in rem: this is important because this is the right to mantencnace, cure, damages etc, the jones act can’t work in this way. ???? Another Jones act: ???? v Johnson Upheld the constitutionality of the Jones Act. MISSING OUTLINE Separation of powers. The Act is Constitutional. Note on Employers Negligence v Moore-McCormack Lines Ice cream case What’s reasonable forseable. Duty of care. Whether the proofs justify with reason the conclusion that employer negligence played any part, even the slightest in producing the injury or death. Gautreaux v Scurlock A seaman is obligated under the Jones act to act with ordinary prudence under the circumstances. The circumstances not only include his reliance on this employer to provide safe work environment but also his own experience, training or education. There reasonable person standard becomes the reasonable seaman. Kernan v American If employer violates statutory duty can cause Jones Act claim even if there’s no negligence. Unseaworthiness