Recent Admiralty Jurisdiction Case Law

A few recent federal maritime decisions have shed further light on the boundaries of admiralty jurisdiction in the U.S. courts:

In Vasquez v. GMD Shipyard Corp., No. 08-4566 (2nd Cir., September 15, 2009), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals found that a tort claim arising out of a death at a shipyard "graving dock" was properly in admiralty, even though the dock had no water in it at the time of the incident.

In In re Complaint of Mission Bay Jet Sports, LLC, No. 08-56142 (9th Cir. June 24, 2009), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that a tort claim by passengers on a Sea-Doo watercraft who were injured while riding in San Diego's Mission Bay was subject to admiralty jurisdiction.

In New Hampshire Ins. Co. v. Home Sav. and Loan Co. of Youngstown, Ohio, No. 08-3902 (6th Cir. September 24, 2009), the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the argument by an insurer that its policy, styled a "marine insurance policy," was sufficient to implicate federal admiralty jurisdiction in a declaratory judgment action, when a large number of the coverages in the policy were non-maritime.

Although none of these cases is ground-breaking or controversial, they do give lawyers valuable clues as to the positions the federal courts will take regarding admiralty jurisdiction with in certain common types of cases. 

Further description and commentary on these cases can be found here.

 

Ninth Circuit Holds that Pennsylvania Rule Does Not Apply to Maritime Personal Injury Claims

In a recent decision (MacDonald v. Kahikolu, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 20162 (9th Cir. 2009)), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Pennsylvania Rule--which effectively shifts the burden of proving fault from plaintiff to defendant in certain maritime collision cases--should not be applied to maritime personal injury claims.

Although prior case law had suggested this conclusion, the MacDonald case has made the Ninth Circuit's position clear.  However, the MacDonald court also recognized that other federal appeals courts, including the Second, Third and Fifth Circuits, have read the Pennsylvania Rule more broadly and applied it to non-collision cases.

A further discussion of this case and a link to the court's opinion can be found here.

Lafcadio Darling specializes in maritime and commercial litigation, representing a wide variety of business and consumer clients. In addition to being licensed in Washington and California, Lafcadio also holds an LL.M. from University College London and is a licensed solicitor in England & Wales.