Admiralty Commons^™

The Class Of Injuries Test: A Unifying Proposal To Determining Duty, Proximate Cause, And Superseding Cause In Negligence Claims, Judge Leonard J. Feldman, Julia Doherty

Seattle University Law Review

While there seems to be universal agreement that liability in tort cannot be unlimited, there is widespread disagreement regarding the various tests that courts utilize to limit such liability. We assume here that breach can be proven: the defendant failed to conduct themself in accordance with the salient standard of conduct (for example, failure to exercise reasonable care under all the circumstances). In the ensuing litigation, the court and jury are asked to decide several issues that each limit liability for negligence. Here, we focus on three oft-debated issues: duty, proximate cause, and superseding cause. The tests for each are …

Foreseeability And Duty In Washington Negligence Law: Leaving The Road Less Traveled By, Leo Linder

Seattle University Law Review

Washington negligence law is a confusing labyrinth of foreseeability that not even Ariadne’s string could guide plaintiffs out of. Foreseeability is implicated in four distinct analyses, several of which overlap considerably. Doctrines that were once questions of law are now questions of fact, and vice versa. Something needs to change.

Washington has taken the novel approach of bifurcating the duty element into two parts—duty’s mere existence, which is a question of law for the court to determine; and duty’s scope, which is a question of fact handed off to the jury to determine. Foreseeability impacts both of these assessments, but …

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 …

Before And After United States V. Reliable Transfer: An Analysis Of Maritime Collision Law, Irene Johnson Barnes

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Remedies In Admiralty For Oil Pollution, Stephen E. Roady

Florida State University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Case Digest, Journal Staff

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

1. ADMIRALTY

"CONTACTS" TEST BASED ON 99 PERCENT AMERICAN OWNERSHIP OF A FOREIGN CORPORATION WILL NOT BE APPLIED TO CIRCUMVENT THE RECIPROCITY PROVISION OF THE PUBLIC VESSELS ACT

SEARCH OF A U.S. VESSEL ON THE HIGH SEAS PURSUANT TO STATUTE AUTHORIZING SAFETY INSPECTIONS BY THE U.S. COAST GUARD MAY NOT BE ASSISTED BY AGENTS OF OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES

LAND-BASED TORT PRINCIPLES OF NEGLIGENCE APPLY TO LIABILITY OF VESSELS FOR INJURIES TO LONGSHOREMEN RATHER THAN PRINCIPLES OF UNSEAWORTHINESS OR VIOLATION OF NONDELEGABLE DUTY

2. ALIEN'S RIGHTS

INTERRUPTION OF AN ALIEN'S PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES AND INVESTOR STATUS OF AN ALIEN …

Comments On The Bremen V. Zapata Off-Shore Co., Journal Staff

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., by bringing domestic law more into harmony with international custom and comparative practice, represents a step in the development of uniformity in transnational law. For this reason the Journal invited the following comments. Professors Charles L. Black, Jr., Robert Leflar and Harold G. Maier explore various aspects of this highly significant case.

Case Digest, Journal Staff

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

Case Digest

1. ADMINISTRATIVE

NON-VESSEL-OPERATING COMMON CARRIERS HAVE BURDEN OF PROOF TO JUSTIFY THE REASONABLENESS OF PROPOSED RATE INCREASE IN A FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION PROCEEDING

2. ADMIRALTY

COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE STANDARD APPLICABLE TO THE CANAL ZONE COMPANY DOES NOT SUPERSEDE THE RULE OF DIVIDED DAMAGES BETWEEN VESSELS

FAILURE TO OBEY COMMANDS OF SHIP MASTER BECAUSE OF VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION CONSTITUTES WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE

PREJUDGMENT INTEREST FROM DATE OF JUDICIAL DEMAND IS PROPER WHEN ORIGINAL ACTION AT LAW Is CHANGED TO ADMIRALTY BY WITHDRAWAL OF JURY DEMAND

THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE ALONE HAS STANDING TO BRING A WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION IN GENERAL MARITIME LAW

PERMITTING …

Longshoremen's Actions For Unseaworthiness And Negligence, Peter G. Sandlund

Cleveland State Law Review

Seaworthiness within the field of the general maritime law, and negligence as applied under the Jones Act and the Longshoremen's and Harbor Worker's Act afford ample remedies to the parties covered by the respective acts and by the strict liability imposed upon the owner of an unseaworthy vessel. But by allowing recovery under theories that mix the two remedies the courts are creating an additional remedy not granted by Congress when it adopted the Jones Act and the Longshore Act.

Admiralty- Shipowner's Right To Indemnification For Loss Caused By Latently Defective Gear Supplied By Nonnegligent Stevedoring-Compnay, John W. Erickson

Michigan Law Review

Defendant stevedoring company contracted to perform stevedoring services for plaintiff shipowner. Pursuant to its agreement to supply gear for the job, the stevedoring company supplied a latently defective rope, the breaking of which caused injury to a longshoreman, an employee of the stevedoring company. The longshoreman obtained a judgment against the shipowner under the doctrine of unseaworthiness, and in a separate action the shipowner sought indemnification from the stevedoring company. The district court, finding the stevedoring company not negligent, denied recovery. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, one judge dissenting. On certiorari to the United States Supreme …

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 …

Longshoreman-Shipowner-Stevedore: The Circle Of Liability, Harney B. Stover, Jr.

Michigan Law Review

It is universally recognized that in the past two decades the United States Supreme Court has substantially revised the law under which seamen, longshoremen and harbor workers (or their survivors) may recover damages for personal injury and death. One of the more recent and most authoritative texts in the field of admiralty and maritime law devotes an entire chapter, 147 pages in length, to the subject of the rights of seamen and maritime workers (or their survivors) of recovery for injury and death. The introduction to that chapter likens the Court's rewriting of the law in this field to a …

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 - 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 …

Admiralty-Validity Of "Born-To-Blame" Clause In Bill Of Lading, Richard B. Barnett S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Petitioner is owner of the S.S. Nathaniel Bacon which collided with the Esso Belgium damaging both ships. The cargo of the Bacon, owned by respondents, was also damaged. The collision was caused by the negligent navigation of employees of both ships. The bill of lading issued to respondents contained a "both-to-blame" clause requiring the cargo owners to indemnify the carrier for any cargo loss indirectly borne by the carrier. This action was brought to determine liability for the damages suffered in the collision. Held, on appeal, the ''both-to-blame" clause is invalid because of public policy prohibiting carriers from …

Admiralty-Injury To Longshoreman Working Ashore By Unseaworthiness Of The Vessel, Jean Engstrom S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Plaintiff, employed by an independent contractor to lade defendant's ship, was injured by a "pontoon" hatch cover which fell on his foot while he was working on the dock beside the ship. The court below found that defendant was not negligent, but that the ship was unseaworthy and that its unseaworthiness caused plaintiff's injury. Held, judgment for plaintiff affirmed. Breach of the warranty of seaworthiness is a tort arising out of a maritime status or relation and is therefore cognizable by maritime law whether occurring at sea or on land; a longshoreman employed by an independent contractor to lade a …

Admiralty- Loss Of Goods - Statutory Exemption Of Owner Of Vessel From Liability

Michigan Law Review

Through the negligence of the chief engineer in putting new coal on top of old coal in a temporary bunker the steamship Galileo was rendered unseaworthy at the time the voyage commenced, catching fire and sinking. The cargo was lost. The plaintiff, cargo owner, sued the owner-operator or the ship in the federal District Court for southern New York for breach of contract to deliver at destination. On certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals the Supreme Court held, in affirming the decree dismissing the libel, that the defendant was relieved from liability under the federal fire statute which …

Carriers -Terminal And Carfloat Bridge - Whether "Terminal" Facilities Or "Interchange" Facilities

Michigan Law Review

The New York Central R. R. brought a suit in admiralty to recover damages to its carfloat No. 37 resulting from a collision occasioned solely by the negligence of the Long Island R. R.'s tug Talisman and those in charge of her. At the time of the collision the carfloat No. 37 was moored in a carfloat bridge of the Long Island's terminal at Long Island City where it had been received in connection with the transportation in interstate commerce of freight cars and freight. The New York Central had received a notice that the Long Island would not be …

Admiralty-Seaworthiness-The Harter Act

Michigan Law Review

A vessel strands through negligent navigation and cargo in the forward hold is damaged as a result of a leak due to the tearing on a rock of plates at the forward end of the vessel. This is the typical case of a fault and error in navigation under section 3 of the Harter Act, as to which the vessel owner is exempted from liability. "That if the owner of any vessel transporting merchandise or property to or from any port in the United States of America shall exercise due diligence to make the said vessel in all respects seaworthy …

Recent Important Decisions, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

Admiralty - Workmen's Compensation - Is a Hydroplane a Vessel? - Claimant was employed in the care and management of a hydroplane which was moored in navigable waters. The hydroplane began to drag anchor and drift toward the beach, where it was in danger of being wrecked. Claimant waded into the water and was struck by the propeller. Held, claimant is not entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Law, since a hydroplane while on navigable waters is a vessel, and therefore the jurisdiction of the admiralty excludes that of the State Industrial Commission. Reinhardt v. Newport Flying Service Corp. …