Admiralty Commons^™

Potential For Unseaworthiness Claims Based On Covid-19 Transmission, Blaine Payer, Read Porter

Sea Grant Law Fellow Publications

No abstract provided.

Admiralty - Torts - A Permanently Moored Vessel Located In Navigable Waters, Though No Longer Involved In Commerce, Supplies The Necessary Maritime Nexus For Invocation Of Admiralty Tort Jurisdiction Using The “Locality Plus” Test, E. B. Mather

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.

What Is A Vessel - A Three Prong Approach, Jeff Nemerofsky

Cleveland State Law Review

In the context of United States admiralty law, the definition of the word "vessel" has different meanings depending upon which statute has jurisdiction, the nature of the circumstances, and the characteristics of the person involved. There is no settled definition of the word. The Jones Act is a statute designed to cover seamen injured by the negligent acts of their employer, and is indicative of other admiralty statutes which, by their lack of a specific definition of the word "vessel," have created controversy in the judicial system. This comment proposes a three prong test that suggests several criteria to be …

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, …

Recent Developments, Various Editors

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Punitive Damages Against Shipowners, Arthur E. Miller

Cleveland State Law Review

Much of our national maritime policy is deep-rooted in the body of American admiralty law. Traditionally, Congress and the courts of admiralty have viewed the merchant seaman as within their protective custody because of the inherent danger of his calling and the unique status of his contract of employment. To encourage shipbuilding and develop the American Merchant Marine, similar protection has been extended to the shipowner by enabling him to limit his financial risks in the event of disaster. Conversely, the concept of punitive damages finds no statutory support in our maritime law and has been so seldom awarded as …

Federal Civil Procedure-Venue-Effect Of 1948 Judicial Code Definition Of Corporate Residence On Venue Under The Jones Act, Mary Mandana Long

Michigan Law Review

Plaintiff seaman, having been injured while serving on a vessel owned and operated by the defendant corporations, brought a civil action in federal district court alleging claims for negligence under the Jones Act, for unseaworthiness, and for maintenance and cure. The venue provision of the Jones Act requires that actions under it be brought in the district in which the defendant employer resides or in which his principal office is located. Plaintiff filed his complaint in the Western District of Pennsylvania although defendants were incorporated and maintained their principal offices in Louisiana. Defendants' motions to dismiss on the ground of …

Federal Jurisdiction-Federal Civil Procedure-Right To Jury Trial Of Seaman's Claim For Maintenance And Cure Where Joined With Claim Under Jones Act, Edwin A. Howe Jr.

Michigan Law Review

Plaintiff seaman, having been injured while in the employ of defendant shipowner, filed an action in federal district court. Plaintiff invoked the court's federal-question jurisdiction alone, under section 1331 of the federal Judicial Code. He alleged claims for negligence under the Jones Act, for unseaworthiness, and for maintenance and cure, and demanded jury trial of all three counts. The trial court sustained the demand as to the first two counts, but ordered that the claim for maintenance and cure be tried to the judge alone, sitting as a court of admiralty. On appeal from the order denying jury trial …

Admiralty--Liability--Transitory Unseaworthiness, Richard Delamielleure

Michigan Law Review

While loading grain aboard a ship, the petitioners, longshoremen, were injured when they inhaled noxious fumes from a shot of grain released into the vessel's hold, the grain having been treated with a chemical insecticide by unknown parties at an inland point. Petitioners brought suit against the city, which owned the grain elevators, and the shipowner, alleging, among other things, that the vessel was unseaworthy. The district court found the ship to be seaworthy, and the circuit court of appeals affirmed the judgment for the defendant. On certiorari the Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the …

Admiralty - Unseaworthiness - Recovery For Injuries Resulting From Condition Arising After Commencement Of The Voyage, John L. Peschel

Michigan Law Review

Plaintiff, a member of the crew of a fishing vessel, sustained injuries while disembarking when he slipped on a slimy substance on the ship railing. In an action brought against the shipowner, the seaman sought recovery on three alternative grounds: first, under the Jones Act based upon negligence; second, under general maritime law based upon the obligation of the shipowner to furnish a seaworthy vessel; third, under general maritime law for maintenance and cure. Judgment was entered pursuant to a verdict limiting the seaman to recovery for maintenance and cure. On the seaman's appeal from the adverse verdict on the …

Admiralty - Warranty Of Seaworthiness - Longshoreman's Choice Of Remedies, Richard E. Young

Michigan Law Review

Plaintiff, employee of a stevedoring company hired to unload defendant's ship, was injured while operating a defective chisel truck in the ship's hold. The truck belonged to and was operated, maintained and brought aboard by the stevedoring company, the ship having no similar equipment. Furthermore, the stevedoring company was assumed to be aware of the defect prior to the accident. Plaintiff brought suit for damages against the shipowner alleging unseaworthiness, and the shipowner impleaded the stevedoring company as a third-party defendant. On motion by the defendants for summary judgment, held, motion denied. The shipowner is liable on an absolute …

Admiralty - Death On The High Seas Act - Effect On Workmen's Compensation Recoveries, Thomas E. Kauper S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Decedent, aboard an airliner in his capacity as flight service supervisor, was killed when the plane crashed into the Pacific. Respondent airlines, decedent's employer, filed an application with the California Industrial Accident Commission to determine its liability under the California Workmen's Compensation Act. The commission awarded decedent's widow a death benefit despite the widow's objection to the commission's jurisdiction. Prior to the award the widow as administratrix of decedent's estate initiated this action under the Death on the High Seas Act (DHSA) in admiralty. On motion for summary judgment in respondent's favor, held, motion granted. DHSA is applicable to …

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 …

Admiralty - Jones Act - Applicability To Dredge Employees As Seaman, Ross Kipka

Michigan Law Review

Petitioner, a laborer, was employed by respondent on a canal digging project. His duties were those of a handyman on respondent's dredge, which was temporarily attached to shore, and his work consisted of carrying supplies from shore to the dredge, cleaning the dredge, and doing errands ashore. The employee was not a member of a maritime union, but was a member of a laborers' union. He lived at home, worked on an eight hour shift, and brought his meals to his place of employment. He was not subject to the supervision of the officer of the dredge but received his …

Admiralty- Conflict Of Laws - Application Of The Jones Act, Robert B. Fiske, Jr. S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Admiralty traditionally did not give a seaman a right of action for negligence unless it could be attributed to the unseaworthiness of the vessel. An injured seaman was limited to two remedies: an action for maintenance and cure, or an action based on -unseaworthiness. To remedy this situation, Congress in 1920 passed the Jones Act. This act was framed in terms of "any seaman who shall suffer personal injury in the course of his employment," and gave to such seamen all the rights granted by statutes modifying or extending the common law right or remedy in cases of personal injury …

The Seaman As Ward Of The Admiralty, Martin J. Norris

Michigan Law Review

The seaman has a peculiar status in American law. He is in most instances a mature individual, sui juris, and therefore capable of entering into his own contracts but nonetheless his contractual dealings with shipmasters and owners are as carefully watched by our admiralty courts as though he were a minor or a young heir. He is in contemplation of the maritime law a ward of the admiralty courts.

The seaman's position in a legal and economic sense is unique. Singled out by the Congress of the United States as one of a class of workers requiring special consideration …

Admiralty - Right To Jury Trial In Certain Cases On Great Lakes - Maintenance And Cure Not Contract Or Tort Matter, Richard B. Barnett S.Ed..

Michigan Law Review

Libelant brought an action for maintenance and cure on the admiralty side of a federal district court in Illinois. He requested a jury trial, relying on the Act of February 20, 1845, which provides that in certain admiralty and maritime cases arising on the Great Lakes relating to any matter of contract or tort, trial shall be by jury on the demand of either party. The trial court heard the case without a jury and dismissed the libel on the merits. The court of appeals held, on appeal, that maintenance and cure was a matter of ancient and established …

Federal Procedure-Change Of Venue-Congestion Of Docket As A Factor Affecting Transfer Under Section 1404(A), Peter Van Domelen S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Plaintiff sued in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to recover damages under the Jones Act for illness sustained while he was serving as a seaman on the defendant's steamship. The defendant moved to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) which provides: "For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought." Evidence introduced showed that …

Admiralty - Workmen's Compensation - Longshoremen's Act Status Of Worker On Vessel Withdrawn From Navigation But Moving On Navigable Waters, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

Plaintiff and five others were hired to load a lake freighter with cargo for winter storage. They were hired by the day and none lived aboard the vessel, which had been out of commission for a year. Plaintiff assisted in towing the vessel to the elevator dock and worked on deck while the cargo was being loaded. While shifting the vessel along the dock, plaintiff's hand was crushed in a winch. Plaintiff brought an action at law under the Jones Act. Held, plaintiff is not a seaman within the terms of that act, nor "a member of a crew" …

Conflict Of Laws-Admiralty -Torts In Territorial Waters

Michigan Law Review

A civil wrong having been committed on board a vessel in foreign territorial waters, the tort by hypothesis being maritime and the court having jurisdiction, the problem then arises as to what law governs the disposition of the case. Stated more specifically, does the nature of admiralty jurisdiction demand that a court, in determining liability for civil wrongs committed in foreign territorial waters, should ignore or modify well-settled principles of the conflict of laws as applied to delictual obligations? This is the point of departure for the discussion to follow.

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 …