Admiralty and Maritime Law
Author:
Schoenbaum, Thomas J.
Edition:
6th
Copyright Date:
2019
24 chapters
have results for maritime or admiralty
Chapter 16 Admiralty Practice and Procedure 831 448 results (showing 5 best matches)
- How Designated. If a claim for relief is within the admiralty or maritime jurisdiction and also within the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction on some other ground, the pleading may designate the claim as an admiralty or maritime claim for purposes of Rules 14(c), 38(e), and 82 and the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions. A claim cognizable only in the admiralty or maritime jurisdiction is an admiralty or maritime claim for those purposes, whether or not so designated.
- * * * The third-party complaint, if within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, may be in rem against a vessel, cargo, or other property subject to admiralty or maritime process in rem, in which case references in this rule to the summons include the warrant of arrest, and references to the third-party plaintiff or defendant include, where appropriate, the claimant of the property arrested.
- The pleading may contain an allegation that jurisdiction is founded on the admiralty or maritime character of the claim. in admiralty, this is sufficient to trigger the application of the distinctive admiralty procedures and the admiralty remedies of the Supplemental Admiralty Rules.
- The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern civil procedure in civil actions, including admiralty actions, in U.S. district courts. Title XIII of the Federal Rules contains what are termed “Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions.” These Rules have letter denominations, Rules A-G. The Supplemental Admiralty Rules cover procedures unique to admiralty law, such as ship arrests, attachments, actions in rem, possessory, petitory and partition actions, and limitation of liability. In the event of conflict or inconsistency between the Supplemental Admiralty Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the former prevails. Many federal district courts have also promulgated local admiralty rules that constitute further procedural rules for admiralty or maritime claims.
- If, however, the claim is cognizable not only in admiralty but also on some ground of federal jurisdiction (such as diversity), the pleader may be put to an election whether to invoke the special admiralty procedures and remedies. To plead an admiralty or maritime claim in such a case, the pleading must, in addition to the admiralty jurisdictional allegations, contain an identifying statement (or its equivalent) as follows:
- Open Chapter
Chapter 1 Admiralty Jurisdiction 1 354 results (showing 5 best matches)
- If a claim for relief is within the admiralty or maritime jurisdiction and also within the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction on some other ground, the pleading may designate the claim as an admiralty or maritime claim for purposes of Rules 14(c), 38(e), and 82 and the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions. A claim cognizable only in the admiralty or maritime jurisdiction is an admiralty or maritime claim for those purposes, whether or not so designated.
- Whether or not a case comes within the admiralty jurisdiction has important consequences for litigants. If the case is within the admiralty jurisdiction, the federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction without regard to diversity of citizenship, and the amount in controversy, or any other basis of subject matter jurisdiction. In the vast majority of contract and tort cases, the claim may be the basis of a maritime lien, a special security interest recognized only in admiralty. Maritime liens may attach to vessels, cargo, and other maritime property and are enforced by a special in admiralty is one against the vessel (or other maritime property) as the offending thing, although as a practical matter in most cases it is a way of obtaining security for the plaintiff’s claim. Furthermore, if the defendant in an admiralty case cannot be found within the district (within the court’s territorial jurisdiction), a special ...available under the admiralty rules against certain assets of...
- Difficult questions arise, however, when it comes to categorizing contracts that contain both admiralty and non-admiralty subject matters. Many contracts are “mixed” in character, containing both maritime and non-maritime elements. The “mixed contract” doctrine holds that, as a general rule, if maritime and non-maritime claims are bound together and cannot be separated, the court must deny jurisdiction even as to the maritime portion of the contract. This rule is subject to two exceptions: (1) cases where the non-maritime obligations are severable (the severability exception); and (2) cases where the non-maritime obligations are only incidental in character. In these two cases, the court will exercise admiralty jurisdiction over the contract. apply concepts of supplemental jurisdiction or find a separate basis for federal jurisdiction to permit adjudication of the entire matter.
- The second part of the test for admiralty tort jurisdiction—the maritime “nexus” or significant relationship to traditional maritime activity—was elucidated in , the Supreme Court mandated consideration of the history and purpose of admiralty law to decide this issue:
- Accordingly, Story declared that the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States is not limited either by the restraining statutes of the English Parliament or the prohibitions of the English courts, and although a contract of marine insurance would be excluded by English practice if it was executed on land, such contracts are within American maritime jurisdiction. Story then announced the rule, still valid today, that with respect to contracts, admiralty jurisdiction “extends over all contracts, (wheresoever they may be made or executed, or whatsoever may be the form of the stipulations) which relate to the navigation, business, or commerce of the sea.” As to torts, Story tells us that while the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction “comprehends all maritime contracts, torts, and injuries . . . [t]he latter branch is necessarily bounded by locality.”
- Open Chapter
Chapter 2 Admiralty and Federalism 65 131 results (showing 5 best matches)
- A second distinctive feature of admiralty preemption is that the judge-made general maritime law, when in conflict with state law, is supreme. This distinctive maritime law doctrine is sometimes called the “reverse held that federal courts do not have the authority to fashion federal common law rules when considering state law claims in diversity jurisdiction, the admiralty rule is that with respect to cases in admiralty jurisdiction, federal courts have the authority to apply and fashion federal common law rules known as the general maritime law, and state law rules that conflict or that infringe upon the essential characteristics or the national uniformity of the general maritime law are inapplicable. Therefore, established rules of the general maritime law may override state statutory and decisional law just as do acts of Congress.
- The general maritime law is not a complete or all-inclusive system. When new situations arise that are not directly governed by legislation or admiralty precedent, federal courts may fashion a rule for decision by a variety of methods. Federal courts may, and often do, look to state statutory law and to precepts of the common law which they “borrow” and apply as the federal admiralty rule. law, as such, to a case with the admiralty jurisdiction, if the occurrence is “maritime but local,” and there is no need to fashion a uniform admiralty rule. Finally, federal courts may apply state law and regulations to supplement the general maritime law when there is no conflict between the two systems of law, and the need for uniformity of decision does not bar state action.
- First, since the body of federal maritime statutes and judicially created general maritime law is not a complete system, judges in admiralty cases frequently adopt state law rules through a process of “borrowing,” thereby incorporating state law doctrines into the general maritime law. This borrowing process may be extensive; for example, much of general maritime tort law is borrowed state law. be more limited. For example, the general maritime law borrows state agency law. Employing this borrowing process, the federal courts prefer generally applicable common law doctrines rather than particular state law because this promotes the uniformity of the general maritime law. Borrowing state law must not be allowed to contravene a clearly established rule of general maritime law or impair the national uniformity that underlies the federal and maritime admiralty law.
- thus established the principle that the general maritime law governs maritime occurrences and that state law must yield to the required uniformity of the maritime law. This uniformity is mandated whether the suit is brought in the admiralty forum, on the “law side” of the federal court in diversity jurisdiction, or in state court.
- First, admiralty is characterized by both federal statutory law and judicially-created general maritime law. In the case of a conflict between the two, it is the statutory law that prevails. Thus, admiralty recognizes “horizontal” preemption of the federal general maritime law by federal statutory law.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 3 Admiralty and the General Maritime Law 89 446 results (showing 5 best matches)
- With admiralty jurisdiction comes the applicability of substantive maritime law. This is true even for maritime cases brought under diversity jurisdiction or in state court. Maritime law is generally coextensive with admiralty jurisdiction, although there are gaps and some concepts of substantive maritime law are not well-developed. Maritime law deals primarily with contracts and torts within admiralty jurisdiction. What is called the general maritime law is the federal common law of maritime matters, often borrowed directly from state law. federal legislation, the general maritime law applies. The general maritime law is the product of the maritime jurisprudence of the federal courts. As the Supreme Court has stated, “Drawn from state and federal sources, the general maritime law is an amalgam of traditional common law rules, modifications of those rules, and newly created rules.”
- From this beginning the maritime tort of negligence has developed into an all-purpose maritime law cause of action that cuts a wide swathe across all the specialized areas of admiralty law. The negligence cause of action may be invoked by virtually anyone who suffers injury or loss in an admiralty setting. The contexts of the maritime negligence cause of action are virtually endless; a non-exhaustive list includes collision, Even the two categories of maritime workers who benefit from federal statutory comprehensive liability schemes, seamen and longshore workers, may assert causes of action for negligence under the general maritime law against persons other than their employers. The Supreme Court has ruled that a cause of action for negligence under the general maritime law lies for death as well as personal injury.
- Survivors of persons killed in admiralty jurisdiction (except for those killed in commercial airplane accidents within 12 nautical miles) may not recover punitive damages under the general maritime law. If the death occurred in state territorial or internal waters, survivors of nonseafarers may recover punitive damages, if available under state law, to supplement the general maritime law.
- Ship repairers, because their contracts are in admiralty jurisdiction, are subject to certain doctrines of the general maritime law in addition to their contractual undertakings. Ship repairers, like other maritime actors, may be liable for negligence under the general maritime law. Thus a ship repairer is potentially liable for the maritime tort of negligence.
- Damages in admiralty are awarded on the basis of both the general maritime law and federal statutory law. Admiralty damage law is federal law; state laws concerning damages are generally not relevant, although admiralty employs similar damage categories to those employed under state law.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 7 Maritime Liens and Ship Mortgages 411 224 results (showing 5 best matches)
- A maritime lien is a privileged claim upon maritime property, such as a vessel, arising out of services rendered to or injuries caused by that property. As one court stated, “[a] maritime lien is [a] special property right in a ship given to a creditor by law as security for a debt or claim subsisting from the moment the debt arises.” The lien attaches simultaneously with the cause of action and adheres to the maritime property even through changes of ownership until it is either executed through the legal process available in admiralty or is somehow extinguished by operation of law. A maritime lien is thus a proprietary interest in a that is independent of possession and is not extinguished by transfer of ownership even to a good faith purchaser. It is both a right in the maritime property ( ). The theoretical basis of the maritime lien goes to the heart of all that is distinctive about admiralty law: it is a right based upon the legal fiction that the ship is the wrongdoer—the...
- For comprehensive treatment of maritime liens see symposium, Maritime Liens and Securities, Ship Sails, and Finance, 47 Tul.L.Rev. 489–805 (1973); 2 Benedict on Admiralty, ch. II-VI (§§ 21–73) (7th Ed. by A. Sann, S. Bellman, and B. Chase, 1982); G. Gilmore & C. Black, The Law of Admiralty, ch. IX (2d Ed., 1975) (cited hereafter as Gilmore & Black); G. Robinson, Handbook of Admiralty Law in the United States, ch. 10 (1939); W. Tetley, Maritime Liens and Claims (1985); D. Thomas, Maritime Liens (14 British Shipping Laws) (1980).
- Maritime Liens arise in tort or in contract either under the Commercial Instruments and Maritime Liens Act, 46 U.S.C. §§ 31341 to 31343, or under the general maritime law. . The existence of a maritime lien is a prerequisite for bringing an action in admiralty. The Commercial Instruments and Maritime Liens Act provides an independent basis for admiralty jurisdiction over maritime liens for “necessaries.”
- The interesting history of maritime liens is recounted in Ryan, Admiralty Jurisdiction and the Maritime Lien: An Historical Perspective, 7 Western Ontario L.Rev. 173 (1968); Toy, Introduction to the Law of Maritime Liens, 47 Tul.L.Rev. 559 (1973); Hebert, The Origin and Nature of Maritime Liens, 4 Tul.L.Rev. 381 (1930).
- A maritime lien is created by various transactions and occurrences in admiralty jurisdiction that give rise to a maritime claim. Many maritime liens arise by operation of the general maritime law, but some are created by statute, such as the Commercial Instruments and Maritime Liens Act and the Federal Maritime Lien Acts). Under United States law, a more extensive array of maritime liens is recognized than under the laws of other nations, and the United States is not a
- Open Chapter
Chapter 8 Carriage of Goods 455 582 results (showing 5 best matches)
- the Supreme Court ruled, first, that admiralty jurisdiction extended over both the ICC and Hamburg Sud carriage contracts despite the fact that they were “mixed” contracts requiring some performance on land, the railroad leg of the journey. The Court reasoned that the determination of admiralty jurisdiction depends not on the place of performance, but rather its nature and character, meaning whether the contract has reference to a maritime service or maritime transactions. Applying that test, the Court accepted admiralty jurisdiction, holding that the multimodal bills of lading were admiralty contracts.
- If the cargo owner’s claim is based on contract, an action for cargo damages is in admiralty jurisdiction even if the loss occurred on land because both an affreightment contract are maritime contracts. However, actions in tort against non-carriers for damages occurring while the cargo was in a warehouse or on a pier are non-admiralty state law claims.
- Contracts of affeightment that include transportation by sea are maritime contracts in admiralty jurisdiction even if they include substantial carriage of goods by land using rail or truck transportation.
- A multimodal or intermodal cargo or shipment is a cargo or shipment that moves by water and land (or air) transportation on a single bill of lading. There is admiralty jurisdiction over such bills. See
- Liability of Maritime Performing Parties
- Open Chapter
Chapter 6 Wrongful Death 393 69 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Admiralty wrongful death law is a composite of different federal statutory, general maritime law and state law remedies. Recovery of damages for wrongful death occurrences within admiralty jurisdiction varies somewhat with each applicable wrongful death regime. Neither Congress nor the courts has addressed maritime wrongful death in systematic fashion; the law of maritime wrongful death has been fashioned on an ad-hoc basis in response to immediate concerns. As a result, different causes of actions and measures of damages apply, depending on a number of variables: the employment status of the decedent; how far from shore the death incident occurs, whether the death resulted from an airplane accident, a vessel accident, or an accident on an offshore drilling rig, and whether the defendant was the employer of the decedent.
- The law of wrongful death in admiralty begins with in 1886. In that case the Supreme Court, relying on common law analogies, held that the general maritime law does not recognize wrongful death or survival causes of action for survivors of persons killed on the high seas or in navigable waters. After this decision, some courts in admiralty applied state wrongful death and survival statutes to allow recovery of damages for deaths, particularly those occurring in state waters, but also those occurring on the high seas.
- wrongful death action was intended to displace state wrongful death statutes in areas of admiralty jurisdiction. however, only created the cause of action for wrongful death under the general maritime law; the decision left many questions—including the damages recoverable—open, to be decided after “further sifting through the lower courts in future litigation.”
- Where DOHSA applies, in admiralty jurisdiction beyond three nautical miles offshore from the territory of the United States, this law is exclusive; nor the general maritime law
- an “unjustifiable anomaly in the present maritime law” and that the application of state wrongful death statutes in admiralty jurisdiction was insufficient:
- Open Chapter
Preface iii 9 results (showing 5 best matches)
- With great pleasure I present the Sixth Edition of the Hornbook on Admiralty and Maritime Law. It is gratifying to hear from so many judges, lawyers, students and others working in the field of admiralty that this treatise is a principal tool for their work and that they regularly consult this book. I note with particular pleasure the many times this treatise is cited in judicial decisions. For this edition I have worked over several years to present as clear a picture as possible of the law of admiralty and maritime law as a distinct field, stemming from the reach of admiralty jurisdiction and covering the substantive law of ships and shipping.
- I am indebted to the numerous lawyers, judges and industry people who have called my attention to developments and with whom I have had the pleasure to discuss aspects of admiralty and maritime law. Elena C. Oguiza kindly read the entire work and offered valuable suggestions. I thank especially Jessica L. McClellan of the admiralty practice division of the U.S. Department of Justice for her kind assistance.
- In the almost eight years since the last edition of Admiralty and Maritime Law, new developments have occurred in virtually every area of this field of law. While the fundamental outlines of the law remain the same, new, often technical details are added by courts facing new issues and problems.
- In three areas major changes have occurred. First, we seem to be in a new era of international litigation concerning important issues regarding the international law of the sea. While for many years nations hesitated to file cases in international tribunals concerning the law of the sea, in the last five years cases have been filed in several international tribunals concerning jurisdiction, navigation, marine pollution, fishing and sovereignty issues. Of course, since the United States is not a party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, U.S. participation in this process is minimal. Full treatment of these developments may be found in the Practitioners’ Edition of this treatise. Second, decisions of foreign courts have increasing significance for maritime law in the United States. Since shipping is an international industry, decisions of foreign courts in such matters as bankruptcy, contracts of affreightment and maritime liens increasingly affect admiralty...
- Small but important changes in the law have occurred in every area of admiralty and shipping law as hundreds of new admiralty law decisions have been handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States and lower federal courts. Some statutory changes have also occurred, such as the new removal statute, that affect admiralty cases. The Sixth Edition of this book updates the law by focusing on the new decisions and developments that move the law forward. Some examples of these new developments are:
- Open Chapter
Table of Contents 29 results (showing 5 best matches)
Chapter 4 Seamen 197 342 results (showing 5 best matches)
- General maritime law claims as well as pendent claims may be joined to a Jones Act claim. Claims for unseaworthiness and for maintenance, cure, and wages may be joined to a Jones Act suit. , the Supreme Court justified the necessity for a jury determination even as to the general maritime law claims on the ground that “only one trier of the fact should be used for the trial of what is essentially one lawsuit to settle one claim that has been split successfully into separate parts because of historical developments.” In contrast, where the plaintiff brings the action as a maritime claim, whether or , there is properly no right to a jury trial. The Jones Act by its terms requires a jury trial only when suit is brought “at law.” When the plaintiff elects to bring the action as a maritime claim, she gives up her jury right since there is no jury trial in admiralty. ...and the Jones Act claims are dismissed, the court has the option of either retaining the jury in an advisory capacity or...
- A prerequisite of a cause of action under general maritime tort law is, of course, admiralty jurisdiction as it is defined under the locality and significant relationship to traditional maritime activity tests. E.g., (claim by a seaman against a land-based doctor for negligence held within admiralty jurisdiction). If the matter is not within admiralty jurisdiction, the action will be governed by state law. See also (seamen-claimant against physician for negligent shore side treatment failed to meet the tests of admiralty jurisdiction; the court distinguished Parker: “Parker presents a unique fact pattern in which ‘treatment’ (or want of it) took place on board a ship through an intermediary, just as though the seaman had inquired directly of the landside physician from shipboard.”).
- in admiralty cases filed in state courts. The effect of this holding is that plaintiffs in admiralty personal injury and wrongful death cases may avoid court had to overcome the hurdle of maritime law’s uniformity requirement. Although the Court recognized that a state courts might reach differing results, the requirement of maritime uniformity is not absolute. The Court reasoned that two distinct characteristics of the doctrine of distinguish it from other aspects of general maritime law requiring uniformity: the fact that
- The principles of contribution and indemnity are well established in admiralty and, although the general maritime law of contribution and indemnity is set out in an earlier chapter, the essentials will be outlined here as they apply to seamen’s cases. For an analysis of indemnity and contribution for maintenance and cure, see infra.
- The protection of seamen is one of the principal reasons for the development of admiralty as a distinct branch of law. Traditionally the work of a seaman was difficult and extremely dangerous, requiring long stays away from home and exposure to the perils of the sea. From earliest times maritime powers, therefore, enacted special protections for seamen as features of their maritime codes.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 5 Longshore and Harbor Workers 303 277 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Before 1972, * * * marine related injuries fell within one of three jurisdictional spheres as they moved landward. At the farthest extreme, Jensen commanded that non-local maritime injuries fell under the [Longshore Act]. Maritime but local injuries upon the navigable waters of the United States * * * could be compensated under the [Longshore Act] or under state law. And, injuries suffered beyond navigable waters—albeit within the range of federal admiralty jurisdiction—were remediable only under state law.
- If there is admiralty jurisdiction under traditional tests, the cause of action will lie under the general maritime law. If not, the suit may be filed as a state law claim in state court or in federal court if there is a non-admiralty basis of jurisdiction.
- Section 905(b) claims are admiralty claims. Section 905(b) does not create a new admiralty remedy but merely codifies existing non-statutory general maritime negligence remedies against vessel owners. In addition, the claim must meet the tests for admiralty tort jurisdiction and the injury must have occurred on navigable waters. right to recover as either seamen under the Jones Act or alternatively against the vessel under Section 905(b).
- decision meant that a longshore worker injured on navigable waters was denied a no-fault remedy against his or her employer. He or she could bring a maritime tort action for negligence, but this was subject to the traditional defenses of the time that barred recovery: contributory negligence, assumption of risk, and the fellow-servant doctrine. To correct this failing, Congress enacted an amendment to the saving to suitors clause to make available to land-based maritime claimants “the rights and remedies under the workmen’s compensation law of any state.” ground that Congress may not delegate legislative authority to the states for matters falling within the admiralty jurisdiction of the United States.
- To receive compensation under the LHWCA: (1) a person must be injured or killed in the course of (and arising out of) maritime employment; (2) the incident must occur on a maritime situs; and (3) the worker must have maritime status.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 14 Salvage 771 149 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Claims involving maritime salvage and/or the maritime law of finds with respect to “treasure” salvage come within U.S. admiralty subject matter jurisdiction. or (or both). jurisdiction adjudicates rights and obligations of persons or entities.
- The law applicable to marine salvage in the United States is the general maritime law, as modified by relevant statutes, treaties and international obligations. What is now the general maritime law of salvage originated as part of the When the U.S. Constitution was adopted, the customary international law of salvage became U.S. domestic law, a part of the general maritime law. The Admiralty Clause of the U.S. Constitution authorizes the further development of this body of law by the federal courts. Inconsistent state laws affecting salvage, such as a scheme of licensing and compensating salvors, will accordingly be preempted by the general maritime law.
- See G. Gilmore & C. Black, The Law of Admiralty § 8–10, at 563 (2d ed. 1975). Arbitrators generally use the same methods as the courts to calculate salvage awards. See G. Brice, Maritime Law of Salvage 63 (2d ed. 1983).
- According to the Supreme Court, only maritime property can be the object of an act of salvage. No adequate definition of maritime property has been formulated, however, and subsequent jurisprudence has interpreted the term broadly. It is settled that all manner of objects other than vessels and their cargo are subject to salvage. Money on a floating corpse Whatever of value found in or upon navigable waters properly within admiralty jurisdiction is subject to the law of salvage.
- An unresolved question is whether or to what extent the general maritime law of salvage preempts state laws asserting ownership or control over shipwrecks within their territory having historical or archaeological value. Two federal district courts have decided this question, coming to diametrically opposite results. In and associated regulations. The Florida district court disagreed, finding that the Eleventh Amendment was not applicable and that the general maritime law of salvage totally preempted state law. The court based admiralty preemption on the need for federal uniformity with respect to the salvaging of historic shipwrecks and the lack of any local concern.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 15 General Average 817 46 results (showing 5 best matches)
- General average is a concept that applies to certain types of losses incurred in a maritime venture and to the unique legal consequences that result. The purpose of general average is to redistribute the burden of marine casualties and sacrifices incurred for the common safekeeping of interests in a marine voyage. The term “average” means loss in maritime insurance and shipping law. In most cases when a loss occurs on a voyage either to the vessel or cargo, it is borne by the party that suffers it. Of course, under recognized doctrines of admiralty tort or contract, the party suffering loss may recover over against another who is liable, such as an insurance underwriter or a person who is a wrongdoer in tort or in breach of a contract. Such a situation is referred to as “particular average.”
- In contrast, general average refers to certain extraordinary sacrifices made or expenses incurred to avert a peril that threatens the entire voyage. In such a case the party sustaining the loss confers a common benefit on all the parties to the maritime venture. As a result the party suffering the loss has a right—apart from contract or tort—to claim contribution from all who participate in the venture. The doctrine of general average is thus an equitable principle derived from the general maritime law. General average is an exception to the principle of particular average that losses lie where they fall; rather the loss becomes “general,” meaning that it is spread ratably among all the parties involved in the maritime adventure.
- “There is a general average act when, and only when, any extraordinary sacrifice or expenditure is intentionally and reasonably made or incurred for the common safety for the purpose of preserving from peril the property involved in a common maritime adventure.”
- maritime law. Neither the ship nor cargo may recover for loss or damage due to delay, such as demurrage, loss of market, or deterioration of the cargo.
- “Rights to contribution shall not be affected [by the fault of one of the] parties to the common maritime adventure, but this shall not prejudice any remedies or defences which may be open against . . . that party in respect of such fault.”
- Open Chapter
Summary of Contents 5 results
Index 1001 89 results (showing 5 best matches)
- For Supplemental Admiralty Rules, see Practice and Procedure, Maritime Attachment.
- ; Supplemental Admiralty Rule C; Maritime Attachment; Practice and Procedure.
- See also In Rem; Maritime Attachment; Supplemental Admiralty Rules B, C, D, E.
- Supplemental Admiralty Rule E, see Supplemental Admiralty Rule E.
- Supplemental Admiralty Rule E, see Supplemental Admiralty Rule E.
- Open Chapter
Title Page 2 results
Chapter 9 Charter Parties 607 185 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Charter parties are maritime contracts in admiralty jurisdiction subject to the general maritime law. All charter parties contain representations concerning the condition of the vessel. Lawyers commonly refer to these representations as “warranties.” However, such representations are commonly construed by the courts, not as true warranties, the breach of which allows the innocent party to avoid the contract, but as covenants, the breach of which gives rise to damages.
- Diana Co. Maritime of Panama v. Subfreights of SS Admiralty Flyer, 280 F. Supp. 607 (S.D.N.Y. 1968)
- Second, the court interpreted the scope and substance of the warranty to mean that a covered vessel heading to a port or berth means that the vessel “can proceed to it, use it, and depart from it without, in the absence of abnormal weather or other occurrences, being exposed to damages which cannot be avoided by good navigation and seamanship.” Third, the court ruled that negligence under the general maritime law may also give rise to liability where a vessel is heading into a port or berth. In such a case the owner or operator of the port or berth has a duty to maintain a safe approach or to warn regarding unsafe conditions. This duty begins at the point where the vessel makes its “last significant turn from the navigation channel” to approach the berth or port. On remand in this case the district court held CARCO was liable both for breach of the safe port/safe berth warranty and for negligence under the general maritime law.
- The concept of unseaworthiness may refer not only to the physical character of the vessel under charter but also to the financial viability of the vessel. If the vessel is burdened with maritime liens or the ship operator is unable to pay the crew and other necessary expenses, the ship charterer may experience damages. The question arises principally in the context of a voyage charter where the vessel is seized and delivery of the cargo is delayed. Financial unseaworthiness may provide the basis of a cause of action both in tort and in contract. The cause of action in tort is claim based on negligence under the general maritime law. Only the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has recognized a tort claim for financial unseaworthiness. The defense may rebut a claim of financial unseaworthiness in two ways. First, if COGSA or the Hague-Visby Rules apply, seizure of the vessel to execute a maritime lien is a cause for which the carrier is not liable.
- a leading case featuring an opinion by famed Judge Friendly, the court, after noting the traditional admiralty rule that “absent any special provision or circumstance, the duty to load, stow, and discharge cargo—and the consequence for failing to do so properly—fall upon the ship and her owners,” held that clause 8 of the New York Produce Exchange Charter shifts this duty to the primary responsibility of the charterer.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 13 Limitation of Liability 741 114 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The pro-rata distribution may be modified by the court, however, since a limitation proceeding is “the administration of equity in an admiralty court.” Two guiding principles determine the court’s pro-rata distribution of the fund: maritime lien priorities and equitable subordination. The court may rank the claims according to lien priorities or supply claimants, for example may be given a preference. In some cases, however, courts, applying equitable principles, have simply decreed a pro-rata distribution of the fund whether or not claims were supported by a maritime lien.
- Limitation of liability is an important theme of admiralty law. The justification was that running a ship was an inherently risky business, a fact well known to all parties to a marine venture, and the imposition of full and one-sided liability on a shipowner would discourage maritime commerce. It was also considered unfair to impose liability on a shipowner for circumstances beyond his control, such as the acts of his agents and servants, not to mention the perils of the sea.
- The proceeding is commenced when the shipowner files a complaint (formerly petition) in the district court in admiralty jurisdiction. Venue is proper in any district where the vessel has been attached or arrested or, if there has been no attachment or arrest, in the district where the owner has been sued. If suit has not yet been commenced against the owner, the limitation complaint may be filed in any district where the vessel is physically present, or, if the vessel is not within any district (because it is lost or in a foreign country), the complaint may be filed in any Limitation may be invoked either as a defense to an action seeking damages or as an independent complaint in admiralty.
- For reviews of the law of limitation of liability, see especially 3 Benedict on Admiralty (7th ed. 1986) and Admiralty Law Institute, 53 Tul.L.Rev. 999–1419 (1979).
- Amounts of compensation for maritime claims for loss of life or personal injury, and property claims, were significantly increased effective 13 May 2004, following Malta’s accession to the 1996 Protocol to the 1976 Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims (LLMC). The 1996 LLMC Protocol substantially increases the amount of compensation payable in the event off an incident and also introduces a “tacit acceptance” procedure for updating these amounts. See
- Open Chapter
Chapter 12 Collision and Marine Casualty 691 180 results (showing 5 best matches)
- See Chapter on the general maritime law. See generally
- Actions involving negligence or fault giving rise to a collision are tortious under the general maritime law. Thus, the jurisdiction of U.S. courts is tested by admiralty principles of tort jurisdiction. These are explained in detail in an earlier chapter and will not be repeated here. It is evident, however, that, drawing upon applicable legal tests, U.S. courts enjoy broad jurisdiction and virtually unlimited venue with respect to collisions and incidents of navigation occurring anywhere in the world, including on the high seas. The applicable substantive law in most cases will be U.S. collision (and limitation of liability) law, although a court has discretion to apply substantive foreign collision law in appropriate circumstances.
- American law differs in many respects from the collision law of the Brussels Convention and the laws of other countries. Some of these differences are: (1) American law recognizes joint and several liability, while the Brussels Convention recognizes joint liability only; (2) American law differs somewhat on the apportionment of damages; (3) American law differs on allowance of recovery of cargo from the non-carrying vessel; (4) American law recognizes the compulsory pilotage defense; (5) American law recognizes many presumptions that are not available under the Brussels Convention or in foreign courts; and (6) American law differs substantially in the area of maritime liens and admiralty practice.
- Actions against the United States for damages for negligent failure to establish, maintain, or operate aids to navigation may be brought, as appropriate, under any of three statutes: the Suits in Admiralty Act, (for discussion of these acts see Chapter 20). The government benefits from the “discretionary function” doctrine which holds that there is no duty to undertake any particular maritime safety measure; but once government decides to act or induces reliance upon navigational aids, there is liability if negligence causes or contributes to an accident.
- thus in admiralty law a violent encounter of moving vessels. The term “allision” means “the action of dashing against or striking with violence upon;” thus in admiralty law an is the violent encounter of a moving vessel and a stationary object such as another vessel, a bridge, a pier, a wharf, or other shore side installation.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 10 Towage 657 49 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The contract of towage is an admiralty contract that is judged according to the standards of the general maritime law. State statutes of fraud do not apply to towage contracts so there is no requirement of a writing; in fact many towage contracts are oral.
- Consequently, the third party has no maritime lien on the tow unless the fault of the tow is independently established or unless an agency relationship exists between the tug and the tow. This immunization of the tow from liability has been criticized as unfair to third parties and against the policy of the general maritime law.
- In the LASH System the barges and the oceangoing vessel on which they are carried are viewed as a common maritime enterprise, and the arrangement is affreightment rather than towage. A tug and a tow made up of one or more LASH barges also is a “ship” for purposes of the carriage rules.
- Gilmore and Black extensively criticize this rule. See G. Gilmore and C. Black, The Law of Admiralty 915 to 918 (2d ed. 1975).
- the owners of the tanker brought suit in the United States against Chevron for breach of the warranty of workmanlike service implied in the contract to provide tug assistance. The court concluded that the doctrine is generally applicable to maritime service contracts, including towage.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 11 Pilotage 677 40 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The obligation on the captain to take a pilot, or be responsible for the damages that might ensue, was prescribed in Roman Law. The Hanseatic ordinances, about 1457, required the captain to take a pilot under the penalty of a mark of gold. The maritime law of Sweden, about 1500, imposed a penalty for refusing a pilot of 150 thalers, one-third to go to the informer, one-third to the pilot who offered, and the residue to poor mariners. By the maritime code of the Pays Bas the captain was required to take a pilot under a penalty of 50 reals, and to be responsible for any loss to the vessel. By the maritime law of France, ordinance of Louis XIV, 1681, corporal punishment was imposed for refusing to take a pilot, and the vessel was to pay 50 livres, to be applied to the use of the marine hospital and to repair damages from stranding. In England (3 George I, ch. 13), if a vessel were piloted by any but a licensed pilot, a penalty of £20 was to be collected for the use of superannuated...
- The pilot has a right against the ship for the fees accorded him by statute or regulation. and there is a maritime lien against In the case of a compulsory pilotage statute, there is often a legal right to recover pilotage fees even where the ship has refused the pilot’s services. If the pilot tenders his services to the master of the vessel and they are refused, there is a maritime lien for the statutory penalty.
- In the case of personal injury or death, the pilot may be covered by either the Jones Act or the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Act according to the circumstances involved. If these are not applicable, suit may be maintained under the general maritime law or for wrongful death.
- There is confusion as well over the maritime status of a pilot who suffers personal injury or death. A long-standing interpretation issued under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA) holds that a river pilot is excluded from coverage under the LHWCA because she is, in effect, a member of the crew of a vessel. This interpretation does not comport with current law. A pilot will usually meet the status and situs tests of the LHWCA. Her duties are clearly maritime in nature; and, if she is injured in the scope of employment, the situs test will virtually always be met as well.
- A pilot will usually not meet the tests for seaman status and may not assert Jones Act and other seamen’s remedies. The rationale is that pilots lack the requisite connection to a vessel or a fleet of vessels. A pilot has an action for wrongful death under either the Death on the High Seas Act or the general maritime law.
- Open Chapter
Table of Cases 915 96 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Admiralty Lines, Ltd., In re, 417
- Diana Compania Maritima, S.A. of Panama v. Subfreights of S.S. Admiralty Flyer, 636, 910
- Alamo Barge Lines, Inc. v. Rim Maritime Co., Ltd., 503, 716, 722, 734
- Allied Maritime, Inc., v. Descatrade, SA, 847
- Allseas Maritime S.A. v. M/V Mimosa, 733, 735, 781
- Open Chapter
Copyright Page 1 result
- Publication Date: November 1st, 2018
- ISBN: 9781634596886
- Subject: Admiralty
- Series: Hornbooks
- Type: Hornbook Treatises
- Description: This Hornbook is a handy, streamlined one-volume abridgement of Schoenbaum’s comprehensive Practitioners’ treatise on Admiralty and Maritime Law. The Hornbook covers the essential topics of jurisdiction, admiralty rules and practice, maritime torts, seamen’s remedies, maritime workers’ compensation, carriage of goods by sea in international trade, charter parties, towage, pilotage, salvage, collision and limitation of liability. Ideal for students and those wanting an introduction to this important field of law, this book places emphasis on the international aspects of maritime law. For this edition the author has reorganized and rewritten most of the sections as well as added important new sections. Every effort was made to analyze and cite every new and recent case on admiralty law up to the time of publication. This work is generally regarded as the definitive academic work on admiralty and maritime law.