Admiralty Commons^™

Textiles As A Source Of Microfiber Pollution And Potential Solutions, Lea M. Elston

Fordham Environmental Law Review

No abstract provided.

Lessons From Renewable Energy Diffusion For Carbon Dioxide Removal Development, Anthony E. Chavez

Fordham Environmental Law Review

No abstract provided.

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents

In Memory Of Professor James E. Bond, Janet Ainsworth

Seattle University Law Review

Janet Ainsworth, Professor of Law at Seattle University School of Law: In Memory of Professor James E. Bond.

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Bp Mdl And Its Aftermath: Whither Opa's Displacement Jurisprudence?, John Costonis

Journal Articles

No abstract provided.

Nevor V. Moneypenny Holdings, Llc: Availability Of Prejudgment Interest For Mixed Maritime Law And Jones Act Claims, Adam S. Bohanan

Ocean and Coastal Law Journal

In maritime personal injury cases, courts have traditionally seen prejudgment interest as part of the compensation due to a prevailing plaintiff. The goal of ensuring the fullest compensation possible has long been recognized as a basic principle of admiralty law. However, federal appellate courts are split over whether to award prejudgment interest on a mixed claim under general maritime law and the Jones Act. This Note explores this issue in Nevor v. Moneypenny Holdings, LLC, which was the first time the question had been raised in the First Circuit. The Fifth and Sixth Circuits have held that because prejudgment interest …

Carriage Of Hazardous Cargoes By Sea - The Hns Convention, Peter Wetterstein

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Port State Control: Strong Medicine To Cure A Sick Industry, John Hare

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Exclusivity Of The Warsaw Convention's Cause Of Action: The U.S. Supreme Court Removes Some Of The Expansive Views Foundations In Zicherman V. Korean Air Lines Co. Ltd., Brian S. Tatum

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Yamaha V. Calhoun: The Supreme Court Allows State Remedies In Certain Wrongful Death Cases In Admiralty, Nicolas R. Foster

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Asbestos Lawsuits In Russia: Bring One If You Can, Anna Linetskaya

Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law

The note examines the challenges faced by asbestos victims in Russia in seeking legal redress, highlighting the barriers posed by the country's legal system, lack of regulatory oversight, and the dominance of the asbestos industry. It argues that despite the existence of tort law as a potential avenue for relief, numerous structural and procedural obstacles deter victims from pursuing claims, underscoring the need for legal reforms to improve access to justice.

Bareboat Charters: Can A Shipowner Limit Liability To Third Parties? Answers For Owners Attempting To Navigate The Unsettled Waters In The Eleventh Circuit, John W. Chitty

Georgia State University Law Review

A bareboat charter is a contractual agreement akin to the lease of a vessel whereby most of the “customary liabilities” of the owner are shifted to the charterer. Some courts have raised concerns over bareboat charters—also referred to as a demise charter—regarding the ability of owners to use the bareboat device as a means to limit liability to injured third parties.

In Baker v. Raymond International, Inc. the Fifth Circuit brought force to this concern; the court held a bareboat charter would no longer shield owners from personal liability for third party injuries caused by the unseaworthiness of a vessel, …

Ensuring Adequate Compensation To The Victims Of The Deepwater Horizon Explosion: Who Says You Can't Teach An Old Dog New Tricks?, 45 J. Marshall L. Rev. 515 (2012), Ryan Linsner

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Admiralty's In Extremis Doctrine: What Can Be Learned From The Restatement (Third) Of Torts Approach?, Craig H. Allen

Articles

The in extremis doctrine has been part of maritime collision law in the U.S. for more than one hundred and sixty years. One would expect that a century and a half would provide ample time for mariners and admiralty practitioners and judges to master the doctrine. Alas, some of the professional nautical commentary and even an occasional collision case suggest that the doctrine is often misunderstood or misapplied. A fair number of admiralty writers fail to understand that the in extremis doctrine is not a single "in extremis rule," but rather several rules, all of which are related to the …

A Sea Of Confusion: The Shipowner's Limitation Of Liability Act As An Independent Basis For Admiralty Jurisdiction, Amie L. Medley

Michigan Law Review

The Shipowner's Limitation of Liability Act of 1851 allowed the owner of a vessel to limit his liability in the case of an accident to the value of the vessel and its cargo if he could show he had no knowledge of or participation in the negligent act that resulted in the loss. In 1911, the Supreme Court decided Richardson v. Harmon, a case which was interpreted for several decades to hold that the Limitation Act formed an independent basis for admiralty jurisdiction. In a 1990 case, the Supreme Court stated in a footnote that it would not reach …

A Complete Property Right Amendment, John H. Ryskamp

ExpressO

The trend of the eminent domain reform and "Kelo plus" initiatives is toward a comprehensive Constitutional property right incorporating the elements of level of review, nature of government action, and extent of compensation. This article contains a draft amendment which reflects these concerns.

Bond Repudiation, Tax Codes, The Appropriations Process And Restitution Post-Eminent Domain Reform, John H. Ryskamp

ExpressO

This brief comment suggests where the anti-eminent domain movement might be heading next.

Breaking The Bank: Revisiting Central Bank Of Denver After Enron And Sarbanes-Oxley, Celia Taylor

ExpressO

No abstract provided.

Introduction, The Osceola After 100 Years: Its Meaning And Effect On Maritime Personal Injury Law In The United States, Craig Allen

Articles

A century ago the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in The Osceola [189 U.S. 158 (1903)], announcing four legal propositions that controlled personal injury claims by seamen at the time. On the 100th anniversary of the Court's decision, the four admiralty law professors contributing to this symposium take the opportunity to critically examine the Court's renowned decision, Congress' responses to the decision, and the effect of both The Osceola's four propositions and the responsive legislation on the remedies available to injured maritime workers in the 21st century.

In the first of the three articles that follow, Professor …

Collision At Sea: The Irreconcilability Of The Superseding Cause And Pure Comparative Fault Doctrines In Admiralty, Kelsey L. Joyce Hooke

Washington Law Review

Courts have long sought to develop rational methods both for limiting a tortfeasor's liability and allocating damages among multiple tortfeasors. Courts developed the doctrine of proximate cause to address the first concern, employing superseding cause analysis when multiple forces produce an injury. In admiralty, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved the second concern by adopting pure comparative fault in . In Exxon Co. v. Sofec, Inc., the Court endorsed the continued use of superseding cause in admiralty cases, holding that it does not conflict with pure comparative fault. This Comment argues that the Sofec Court's method of superseding cause analysis …

The Continuing Problem Of Statutes Of Limitations In Section 1983 Cases: Is The Answer Out At Sea, 22 J. Marshall L. Rev. 285 (1988), Robert M. Jarvis, Judith Anne Jarvis

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Protection Of Shipowners’ Liability Under United States Law And Marine Insurance Practice, Izak Stephanus Fourie

LLM Theses and Essays

Shipowners are exposed to a variety of risks that are, to a large extent, unique to maritime business. Because of factors like the recent increase in the size and value of ships, increase in marine traffic, enactment of legislation imposing new liabilities, and the tendency of courts to make huge awards to personal injury and death claims, shipowners are exposed to potential losses or claims worth millions of dollars in the event of disaster. These heavy risks led to the establishment of the marine insurance industry, as well as the enactment of legislation that limits shipowners’ liability. This legislation was …

Admiralty Tort Jurisdiction—Traditional Maritime Activity Explained: Commercial Use Of Vessel Unnecessary To Invoke Jurisdiction, La Quita Kenner Saunders

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Mobil Oil Corp. V. Higginbotham—Confusion Returns To Maritime Wrongful Death Actions, Howard Hall

Seattle University Law Review

In 1967, a helicopter carrying three passengers and a pilot returning from an offshore drilling platform crashed into the Gulf of Mexico beyond Louisiana's territorial waters, killing all aboard. The families of the decedents instituted a wrongful death suit in admiralty, seeking recovery under general maritime law, the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA), and the Jones Act. The federal district court found Mobil Oil Corporation, the owner and operator of the helicopter, negligent. In awarding damages the district court limited recovery to pecuniary losses, holding that a pecuniary loss limitation applied regardless of the theory of recovery. Specifically, …

Jurisdiction, Shipowner Negligence And Stevedore Immunities Under The 1972 Amendments To The Longshoremen's Act, David W. Robertson

Mercer Law Review

Prior to major changes effective November 27, 1972,' the jurisprudence under the 1927 Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act 2 had developed a well-defined system for dealing with injuries to employees covered by that statute. Three entities are routinely involved in such injuries: the vessel in connection with which the victim was working at the time of his injury; the independent contractor hired by the vessel to load, unload, repair, or perform some other service to the vessel; and the injury victim himself, who is an employee of the independent contractor. It is customary to refer to these three entities …

Pleasure Boat Torts In Admiralty Jurisdiction: Satisfying The Maritime Nexus Standard

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Admiralty Law - 1972 Amendments To The Longshoremen's And Harbor Workers' Compensation Act - Shipowner's Duty Toward Longshoreman Is Same As Land-Based Employer's Duty Toward Employees Of Independent Contractor, Henry Scott Wallace

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.