Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
UNITED STATES ADMIRALTY AND SHIPPING LAW—RECENT DEVELOPMENTS1
Nicholas J. Healy*
No significant maritime legislation was enacted in 1982, the subject of this article, nor was the year one to be remembered for many important court decisions. Rather, the period was marked by the apparent resolution of some of the controversies that had engaged the attention of the federal courts and the admiralty bar in recent years. Unfortunately, these controversies were to some extent replaced by others. New conflicts arose among the circuits, and there seems to be little hope of prompt resolution of those which do not involve either jurisdictional questions or the rights of seamen and other maritime workers. The Supreme Court remains too preoccupied with constitutional and other issues to devote sufficient attention to conflicts in the maritime law. Perhaps a solution lies in the creation of a nationwide court of appeals as some commentators now urge.
A. ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION AND PRACTICE
1. Tort Jurisdiction.
During 1982, the Supreme Court rendered the most significant decision concerning admiralty jurisdiction since Executive Jet
2. In Foremost Insurance Co. v. Richardson
3, a divided court held that the admiralty jurisdiction of the federal judiciary extends to collisions between pleasure boats on navigable waters4, even though the boats are not engaged in commercial activity and the waters are seldom used by commercial vessels.
Two pleasure craft collided in the Amite River in Louisiana, resulting in the death of an occupant of one of the boats. The decedent’s children sued the operator of the other craft and her liability insurer, in admiralty, alleging negligence. The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that under Executive Jet there must be a relationship with traditional maritime activity for a tort committed on navigable waters to be cognizable in admiralty5. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed this finding, holding that, regardless of their
* Adjunct Professor of Law at New York University School of Law and a member of the New York Bar.
1 This article was written with the assistance of Alice Scovell, a staff member of the Annual Survey of American Law, published by the New York University School of Law, and reprinted from the 1982 volume. It was originally submitted for publication on 10th March, 1983.
2 Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, 409 U.S. 249, [1973] AMC1 (1972), holding that “in the absence of legislation to the contrary, there is not federal admiralty jurisdiction over aviation tort claims arising from flights by land-based aircraft between points within the continental United States:” at pp. 274 and 20 respectively.
3 102 S. Ct. 2654, [1982] AMC 2253, rehearing denied, 103 S. Ct. 198 (1982).
4 The term “navigable waters,” in the context used in the opinion, is obviously intended to mean waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States, i.e., waters which are navigable in fact and which form part of an interstate or international highway of commerce. Navigable waters wholly within one state and having no navigable connection with the sea or with another state are plainly not within the admiralty jurisdiction. Stapp v. The Clyde, 43 Minn. 192, 45 N.W. 430 (1890); G. Gilmore & C. Black, The Law of Admiralty, (2d ed. 1975) 32–33.
5 470 F.Supp. 699, [1981] AMC 2612 (M.D. La. 1979).
607