Admiralty Commons^™

The Abandoned Wards Of Admiralty: The Supreme Court’S Course Change On The Availability Of Punitive Damages To Seamen In Unseaworthiness Claims, Hillary Smith Weise

Washington Law Review

This Comment compares Dutra Group v. Batterton and Tabingo v. American Triumph LLC, two significant but contradictory admiralty decisions on the availability of punitive damages in unseaworthiness claims. It argues that the Washington State Supreme Court’s decision in Tabingo—that punitive damages should be permissible in unseaworthiness claims—is far better from both policy and doctrinal standpoints. From a doctrinal perspective, maritime law has traditionally permitted punitive damages in admiralty cases. Therefore, it would have been more appropriate for the Court to adhere to the principle that it is better to allow a remedy in admiralty proceedings so long as …

Us Supreme Court Bars Punitive Damages In Unseaworthiness Claims, Craig H. Allen

Articles

To appreciate the reach of the Court's decision on punitive damages for unseaworthiness claims, it is important to understand the federal courts' steady expansion of the class of workers who now qualify as "seamen," the class of floating vessels and structures that now qualify as "vessels," and the strict liability standard for determining whether a vessel is seaworthy.

President Trump's Emerging Maritime Policy, Craig H. Allen

Articles

President Donald Trump was elected on a pledge to make America great again. Although he did not enter office with a comprehensive national maritime policy, the elements of such a policy have begun to emerge. Since taking office on January 20, 2017, Trump and the Republican controlled 115th Congress have enacted broad tax reforms and significantly increased defense spending, the first step toward rebuilding the US Navy to 355 ships. The 115th Congress also invoked the Congressional Review Act of 1996 to overturn 14 rules issued by federal agencies during President Obama's term.

Shipping Company Ordered To Pay Almost $1m For Demoting Whistleblower, Craig H. Allen

Articles

The US Department of Labor's (DOL) Administrative Review Board recently affirmed a DOL administrative law judge (ALJ) decision in favor of the former master of the Horizon Trader who had filed a complaint alleging that the Horizon violated the Seaman's Protection Act by discharging him in retaliation for making protected safety reports to the US Coast Guard and American Bureau of Shipping. In Loftus v. Horizon Lines, Inc. (DOL ARB Case No. 16-082), the board upheld the ALJ's award of $655,1998.90 in back pay plus interest; $10,000 in compensatory damages for emotional distress; $225,000 in punitive damages, and an unspecified …

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 …

Getting The "Story" Out: Teaching Admiralty At The University Of Washington, Craig H. Allen

Articles

I count myself fortunate indeed to be a law teacher and to have the privilege of teaching admiralty to the next generation of attorneys. My good fortune is compounded by the fact that I teach admiralty (and several other maritime law courses) at the University of Washington, a major research university with a complementary graduate level School of Marine Affairs. There is no finer venue for studying maritime law than the state of Washington. By any measure, Washington is among the most “marine” and most trade-dependent states in the nation, and it has long been home to a distinguished maritime …

Taking Narrow Channel Collision Prevention Seriously To More Effectively Manage Marine Transportation System Risk, Craig H. Allen

Articles

This Article locates the narrow channel rule in the larger context of risk management in confined waters. It begins by examining the risks posed by vessel navigation in narrow channels and fairways in the United States and the risk management measures employed to eliminate or reduce those risks, including the narrow channel rule in the applicable rules of the road. The Article then identifies problems with the existing rule and examines several alternatives to address the problems. The Article concludes that mariners deserve clearer guidance on how to identify the waters where Rule 9 applies than they have so far …

Revisiting The Thames Formula: The Evolving Role Of The International Maritime Organization And Its Member States In Implementing The 1982 Law Of The Sea Convention, Craig H. Allen

Articles

Despite the findings that marine casualty rates have "plummeted" and the safety record of the oil transport industry has "significantly improved," high visibility pollution incidents in the last decade like those involving the tankers Erika and Prestige off the coast of Europe, together with the chronic problems of illegal and unregulated fishing and dismal labor conditions for many seafarers led a United Nations-chartered consultative group of leading international organization representatives to conclude that there is an "urgent" need to improve State performance in the implementation and enforcement of the international maritime legal regime.

There is less agreement, however, in how …

Hiding Behind "Tradition"? Should U.S. Vessel Traffic Centers Exercise Greater Direction And Control Over Vessels In Their Areas?, Craig H. Allen

Articles

In the alermath of the 2007 COSCO BUSAN allision and oil spill, some asked whether United States Coast Guard Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) operators monitoring the developing incident should have intervened explicitly to wam the vessel or even order it to take avoiding action.

The controversy called to mind a speech by a former IMO secretary-general in which he suggested that those resisting greater shore-based control were "hiding behind tradition." In its investigation of the COSCO BUSAN incident, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) urged the Coast Guard to better define its expectations regarding the exercise of VTS control authority …

Legal Interoperability Issues In International Cooperation Measures To Secure The Maritime Commons, Craig Allen

Books

Contains papers submitted at a workshop sponsored by the William B. Ruger Chair of National Security Economics, Newport, Rhode Island 6-8 November, 2006.

Obligations And Implications For Ships Encountering Persons In Need Of Assistance At Sea, Martin Davies

Washington International Law Journal

While there are multiple obligations to rescue individuals lost at sea, mostly expressed in multilateral treaties, there are limited mechanisms for enforcing those laws. Enforcement needs to be accomplished through criminal law, as the civil lawsuit is a poor mechanism. The United States and Australia provide adequate examples of the implementation, or lack thereof, of international treaties into criminal law. However, even where the various treaties have been incorporated into the law of the nation by implementing legislation, the enforcement remains ineffective. This is partially because the onus of enforcement falls primarily on the flag state of the ship in …

The Tampa Incident: Imo Perspectives And Responses On The Treatment Of Persons Rescued At Sea, Frederick J. Kenney Jr., Vasilios Tasikas

Washington International Law Journal

The duty to provide aid to fellow seafarers in distress has long been enshrined in maritime tradition. The modem formalization of this duty in international law, however, has created a division between the duty to "provide assistance" and the obligation to "rescue." This division has created ambiguity and friction as the former duty applies to individuals and vessels whereas the latter obligation applies to states. In recent years, incidents involving two commercial vessels, the Tampa and the Castor, have starkly illustrated the extent to which this ambiguity and friction in international law translates into negative effects in the real …

Introduction To The Maritime Law Forum, Craig H. Allen

Washington International Law Journal

The members of the Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal are to be congratulated for their initiative, compassion, and insight in calling attention to the August 26, 2001 M/V Tampa incident and subjecting the actions of the involved principals and the governing legal regime to close and thoughtful scrutiny. Planning for the April 22, 2002 symposium in Seattle began in the fall of 2001, shortly after the Tampa's week-long crisis involving 438 migrants garnered international attention. Speakers for the Symposium conference, recruited under the leadership of the Journal's 2001-2002 Editor-in-Chief, Kelly Thomas, hailed from Australia, Europe and throughout the …

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 …

Select Provisions Of The Commercial Maritime Code Of The Russian Federation, William Honea

Washington International Law Journal

The Commercial Maritime Code of the Russian Federation (RMC) entered into force on April 30, 1999. The RMC is a far-reaching and progressive document that seeks to provide a framework for all commercial maritime activities within Russia. The RMC uses the language of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and implements treaties and agreements including those that cover oil pollution, vessel arrest, and competency standards for seafarers. It occupies the field of Russian maritime law, specifically replacing a long list of inherited Soviet laws. It regulates the movement of goods at sea, many common aspects …

Limitation Of Liability, Craig Allen

Articles

From the list of "problems" with the Limitation Act in the U.S. that are within the federal courts' power to resolve, I have elected to discuss three. Necessarily, the coverage of each problem will be brief. After a short summary of the Limitation Act's principal features, the essay examines the recurring confusion over the relevance of unseaworthiness in limitation actions. Second, it highlights the need to update the courts' choice of law doctrine for limitation issues. Finally, it turns to an issue that is only beginning to emerge, and one which the federal courts may yet save from idiosyncratic precedents …

Federalism In The Era Of International Standards: Federal And State Government Regulation Of Merchant Vessels In The United States (Part Iv), Craig H. Allen

Articles

No abstract provided.

The Dumping Of The New Carissa: An Analysis Of The Emergency Provisions Of The London Convention, Jill S. Murakami

Washington International Law Journal

The London Convention prohibits the dumping of hazardous materials into the ocean. This prohibition may, however, be suspended in emergencies. The bow of the M/V New Carissa ("New Carissa "), which contained approximately 135,000 gallons of oil, was dumped into the Pacific Ocean under the emergency provisions of the London Convention. An analysis of the dumping of the New Carissa illustrates the weaknesses of these provisions. As written, the provisions are ambiguous and open to varying interpretations. As a result, nations may use the emergency provisions as loopholes to dump substances that they would otherwise be prohibited from dumping, thereby …

Federal Maritime Commission Sanctions On Japanese Carriers: A Call For Fairer Methods Of Resolving Disputes, Randy L. Baldemor

Washington International Law Journal

On February 26, 1997, the U.S. Federal Maritime Commission imposed sanctions upon Japanese shipping carriers for allegedly restrictive port practices that existed in Japan. The Federal Maritime Commission imposed the sanctions under Section 19 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920. Section 19 gives the Federal Maritime Commission authority to make rules and regulations where conditions unfavorable to shipping in the foreign trade exist. However, the Japanese Government does not control the port practices in Japan. The Japan Harbor Transportation Authority, a private conglomeration of labor unions, shippers, and other shipping entities in Japan, regulates port practices through collective-bargaining negotiations. …

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 …

Federalism In The Era Of International Standards: Federal And State Government Regulation Of Merchant Vessels In The United States (Part Iii), Craig H. Allen

Articles

No abstract provided.

Federalism In The Era Of International Standards: Federal And State Government Regulation Of Merchant Vessels In The United States (Part Ii), Craig H. Allen

Articles

No abstract provided.

Federalism In The Era Of International Standards: Federal And State Government Regulation Of Merchant Vessels In The United States (Part I), Craig H. Allen

Articles

In examining federalism issues relevant to merchant vessels, this article will distinguish between those laws and regulations governing liability for harm and those which regulate safety. Federalism questions arise most frequently in the former, private, maritime law domain, when courts are called upon to determine judicial jurisdiction and the extent to which state law may be applied to adjudicate liability and damages in cases falling within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. Less frequently, the federalism debate focuses on public maritime law, when states seek to regulate commercial vessel safety or vessel-source pollution.

This article will begin with an examination of …

Is Sky Reefer In Jeopardy? The Mla's Proposed Changes To Maritime Foreign Arbitration Clauses, Soo Sandra Jin Lee

Washington Law Review

After almost sixty years of change in the international commercial arena, the United States needs to revise its maritime law to reflect international practice. Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Vimar Seguros y Reaseguros, S.A. v. MIV Sky Reefer, held that foreign arbitration clauses in maritime bills of lading will be enforced. In an attempt to reverse this decision, the Maritime Law Association included in its proposal to revise the Carriage of the Goods by Sea Act a clause that specifically denies the enforcement of foreign arbitration clauses. This Comment argues that Congress should not adopt the proposed revision …

Yamaha Motor Corp. V. Calhoun: An Examination Of Jurisidiction, Choice-Of-Laws, And Federal Interests In Maritme Law, B.J. Haeck

Washington Law Review

In Yamaha Motor Corp. v. Calhoun, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that state remedies were still available for non-seamen killed inside of a state's three-mile territorial sea, despite the existence of a general maritime remedy at federal law. This Note argues that the Court failed to consider its traditional tests when confronted with this choice between state and federal maritime law. In so doing, it erred in finding that state law was applicable. The Court's decision also created a conflict between the traditional standard of significant federal interest required in order to confer federal admiralty jurisdiction to tort plaintiffs …

Strict Compliance With Marine Insurance Contracts: Conflicting Rules In The Ninth Circuit, Rhea D. Pappas-Ward

Washington Law Review

Under the federal admiralty "strict compliance rule," a policy of marine insurance is voided by an insured vessel owner's failure to comply with express policy terms or "warranties." Although recognized and applied by a majority of the federal circuits, the strict compliance rule has been improperly ignored by a handful of district courts within the Ninth Circuit. Instead, by misapplying the holding of Wilburn Boat v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co., a 1955 Supreme Court case, and by ignoring the Ninth Circuit's interpretation of Wilburn Boat in Bohemia, Inc. v. Home Insurance Co., these district courts have turned to …

The Administrative Claim Prerequisite To Suit Against The United States Under The Admiralty Jurisdiction Extension Act, Craig H. Allen

Articles

The Admiralty Jurisdiction Extension Act (AJEA) confers federal admiralty jurisdiction over all causes of action for vessel-caused damage done or consummated on land. In extending admiralty jurisdiction to land-based damage, the Act not only opened admiralty courts to a new class of litigants, it also enlarged the range of possible claims which could be brought against the United States under the Suits in Admiralty Act (SAA) or the Public Vessels Act (PVA). At the same time, however, an important prerequisite to suit against the government was incorporated into the AJEA that is absent from the SAA or PVA: where an …

Preventing Merchant Vessel Groundings By Enforcing A Professional Mariner Standard Of Care, Craig Howard Allen

Washington Law Review

Admiralty courts adjudicating claims arising from merchant vessel groundings or allisions are often required to allocate fault for the casualty among three possible parties: The officers and owner of the vessel, the vessel's embarked pilot, and the Coast Guard or any other governmental agency providing navigation services upon which the vessel operators relied. To determine fault, the court must evaluate each party's conduct under the appropriate standard of care. This Comment examines the standard of care applicable to merchant vessel officers and pilots. It concludes that some courts apply a standard to these mariners in determining liability that is less …

Preventing Merchant Vessel Groundings By Enforcing A Professional Mariner Standard Of Care, Craig Howard Allen

Washington Law Review

Admiralty courts adjudicating claims arising from merchant vessel groundings or allisions are often required to allocate fault for the casualty among three possible parties: The officers and owner of the vessel, the vessel's embarked pilot, and the Coast Guard or any other governmental agency providing navigation services upon which the vessel operators relied. To determine fault, the court must evaluate each party's conduct under the appropriate standard of care. This Comment examines the standard of care applicable to merchant vessel officers and pilots. It concludes that some courts apply a standard to these mariners in determining liability that is less …

Foremost Insurance Co. V. Richardson: If This Is Water, It Must Be Admiralty, Phyllis D. Camilla, Michael P. Drzal

Washington Law Review

This article will examine the two decisional approaches that the Richardson Court considered in support of the proposition that admiralty jurisdiction should not apply to the facts of the case before it, and will explore the shortcomings of each in an attempt to understand why the majority ultimately felt compelled to reject both. The article will then focus on the five specific arguments thought to mandate that rejection, demonstrating that the conclusion the Court reached is not logically supportable. Finally, a new approach to the issue will be forwarded, one that provides the basis for a more rational approach to …