Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Keyword
Articles 1 - 16 of 16
Full-Text Articles in Admiralty
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
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 …
Collision At Sea: The Irreconcilability Of The Superseding Cause And Pure Comparative Fault Doctrines In Admiralty, Kelsey L. Joyce Hooke
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 …
Is Sky Reefer In Jeopardy? The Mla's Proposed Changes To Maritime Foreign Arbitration Clauses, Soo Sandra Jin Lee
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
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 …
Preventing Merchant Vessel Groundings By Enforcing A Professional Mariner Standard Of Care, Craig Howard Allen
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
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
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 …
The Longshoremen's And Harbor Workers' Compensation Act And The Invitee Standard: Maritime Law Gone Aground?, Thomas W. Burt
The Longshoremen's And Harbor Workers' Compensation Act And The Invitee Standard: Maritime Law Gone Aground?, Thomas W. Burt
Washington Law Review
Considers the 1972 amendments to the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, especially circumvention of the exclusive benefits provision and "redistributing the liability for longshoring accidents so as to promote safety in the industry."
Apportionment Of Damages In Collisions At Sea, Charles M. Davis
Apportionment Of Damages In Collisions At Sea, Charles M. Davis
Washington Law Review
This comment will consider the problems which must be faced by the courts and the bar in establishing standards for apportionment of blame and will evaluate the effects of the new rule on other rules and doctrines of substantive maritime law. Although the Court's decision in Reliable Transfer abrogates the equal division of damages rule, it leaves undisturbed several anomalous doctrines developed in response to the rule.
The Jones Act: The Employer As An Insurer; Constitutional Aspects, Douglas M. Fryer
The Jones Act: The Employer As An Insurer; Constitutional Aspects, Douglas M. Fryer
Washington Law Review
In Kernan v. American Dredging Co., the United States Supreme Court categorically rejected negligence as a test of liability under the Jones Act. Thus, for the first time the Court has stated what has been apparent for some time: that proof of negligence, in the common-law sense of the term, is no longer necessary to recover in a Jones Act suit. This Comment will attempt to trace the gradual erosion of tort theory as the standard and the re-establishment of what now seems to be liability without fault. A constitutional problem raised by this trend has not as yet been …
Seamen Are "Wards Of The Admiralty" But Longshoremen Are Now More Privileged, John Ambler
Seamen Are "Wards Of The Admiralty" But Longshoremen Are Now More Privileged, John Ambler
Washington Law Review
The State of Washington has greatly contributed to the strange result which is the subject of inquiry here. Two important cases leading to this result reached the United States Supreme Court from this State. One case was appealed from the State Supreme Court. One was appealed through the Circuit Court of Appeals from a decision of the United States District Court in Seattle. The cases are almost thirty years apart. To appreciate the absurdity of the present state of the law some background material is needed.
The Exclusive Admiralty Jurisdiction, W. T. Beeks, Gordon W. Moss
The Exclusive Admiralty Jurisdiction, W. T. Beeks, Gordon W. Moss
Washington Law Review
In Cline v. Price the owners of a minority interest in a fishing vessel, being dissatisfied with the use to which it was being put, brought suit in Superior Court against the majority owners. The action prayed the appointment of a receiver, an accounting, and a partition of the vessel by sale and distribution of the proceeds. A demurrer was sustained by the lower court and affirmed by the Supreme Court. The ground assigned was that the suit, essentially one for partition, was exclusively within the admiralty jurisdiction of the United States, and the state courts have no jurisdiction to …
Priorities Puzzle Under Ship Moorage Act, Orlo B. Kellogg
Priorities Puzzle Under Ship Moorage Act, Orlo B. Kellogg
Washington Law Review
The Ship Mortgage Act provides that a preferred ship mortgage, that is one which complies with the requirements of the act, shall have priority over all except "preferred maritime liens." It then proceeds to define preferred maritime liens as those liens arising before the recording and indorsement of the preferred mortgage in question, and also those liens arising from damages resulting from torts, those arising for wages of a stevedore when employed directly by the owner or operator, master, ship's husband or agent of the vessel, and those arising for the wages of the crew, for general average and for …
The Fellow Servant Rule In Admiralty Cases Involving Stevedores, Fred R. Boynton
The Fellow Servant Rule In Admiralty Cases Involving Stevedores, Fred R. Boynton
Washington Law Review
In view of the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Washington in the case of Havertv v. International Stevedoring Co., it becomes a matter of importance to ascertain just what the maritime law is in regard to the application of the fellow servant rule in cases where a stevedore has been injured as the result of the negligence of a fellow servant.
May An Action For Damages Be Brought In A State Court By A Seaman Injured In The Course Of His Duty, Or By His Personal Representatives In Case Of His Death, Under Section Thirty-Three Of The Jones Act?, Clifford M. Langhorne
May An Action For Damages Be Brought In A State Court By A Seaman Injured In The Course Of His Duty, Or By His Personal Representatives In Case Of His Death, Under Section Thirty-Three Of The Jones Act?, Clifford M. Langhorne
Washington Law Review
Section 33 of the Jones Act, amending Section 20 of the Seamen's Act of 1915,2 gives to a seaman injured in the course of his duty, or his personal representatives in case of his death, the right to proceed at his election under the provisions of the Employers' Liability Act. The last sentence of the Jones Act, it will be noticed, reads as follows: "Jurisdiction in such actions shall be under the court of the district in which the defendant employer resides or in which his principal office is located." The question is, what is the meaning of the words …