Also known as: marine · marinarius · mariner · mariners · admiralty · seaman
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A descriptor for matters involving navigation, commerce, or jurisdiction on the high seas or navigable waters. The term supplies the basis for federal judicial power over cases arising from maritime activities and governs procedural rules in such proceedings.
Marcus Mitchell's cargo ship collides with another vessel on the open sea. The injured owner files suit in federal district court asserting that the dispute falls within the constitutional grant of power over maritime matters. The court accepts the case because the collision occurred on navigable waters and directly implicates admiralty concerns.
Michelle Murphy sues a shipping company after cargo damage during a voyage. At trial the company offers a port agent's out-of-court statement. The court applies the Federal Rules of Evidence because the proceeding is an admiralty case and the rules expressly cover such matters.
Melissa Mills purchases a cruise ticket containing a clause requiring all disputes to be litigated in Florida. After an injury at sea she sues in her home state. The court enforces the clause because the underlying transaction is a maritime contract subject to federal admiralty principles.
Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., a Florida corporation, sold passage tickets for a seven-day cruise aboard its ship the Tropicale to Eulala and Russel Shute, who resided in Washington. The Shutes purchased the tickets through a travel agent in Arlington, Washington. The agent forwarded the payment to Carnival's headquarters in Miami, Florida. Carnival then prepared the tickets and mailed them to the Shutes in Washington. The face of each ticket directed passengers to read the terms and conditions on the last pages. Contract page 1 stated that acceptance of the ticket constituted agreement to all terms and conditions. This included a provision that all disputes arising under or in connection with the contract would be litigated, if at all, in a court located in the State of Florida to the exclusion of the courts of any other state or country. The Shutes boarded the Tropicale in Los Angeles, California. The ship sailed to Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, and then returned to Los Angeles. While the vessel was in international waters off the Mexican coast, Eulala Shute slipped on a deck mat during a guided tour of the ship's galley and was injured. The Shutes filed a negligence suit against Carnival in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Carnival moved for summary judgment. It contended that the forum-selection clause required the suit to be brought in Florida or, alternatively, that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction because Carnival's contacts with Washington were insubstantial. The district court granted the motion on personal jurisdiction grounds. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. It first concluded that Carnival's solicitation of business in Washington established sufficient contacts for personal jurisdiction. It then held that the forum-selection clause was unenforceable because it was not freely bargained for and because the Shutes were physically and financially incapable of litigating in Florida. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseMiles Montgomery challenges a federal statute that creates a civil remedy for violence occurring on a vessel. The court examines whether Congress properly invoked its authority over maritime matters or exceeded enumerated powers in regulating the conduct.
Maria Morales owns a barge that breaks loose during a storm because the mooring was left unattended. The court applies the admiralty rule that weighs the burden of precautions against the probability and gravity of harm to determine liability for resulting damage.
These appeals concern the sinking of the barge, “Anna C,” on January 4, 1944, off Pier 51, North River. The Conners Marine Co., Inc., was the owner of the barge, which the Pennsylvania Railroad Company had chartered. The Grace Line, Inc., was the charterer of the tug, “Carroll,” of which the Carroll Towing Co., Inc., was the owner. The decree in the limitation proceeding held the Carroll Company liable to the United States for the loss of the barge’s cargo of flour, and to the Pennsylvania Railroad Company for expenses in salving the cargo and barge. It held the Carroll Company also liable to the Conners Company for one half the damage to the barge. These liabilities were all subject to limitation. The decree in the libel suit held the Grace Line primarily liable for the other half of the damage to the barge, and for any part of the first half not recovered against the Carroll Company because of limitation of liability. It also held the Pennsylvania Railroad secondarily liable for the same amount that the Grace Line was liable. The Carroll Company and the Pennsylvania Railroad Company have filed assignments of error. On June 20, 1943, the Conners Company chartered the barge, “Anna C,” to the Pennsylvania Railroad Company at a stated hire per diem, by a charter of the kind usual in the Harbor, which included the services of a bargee, apparently limited to the hours 8 A.M. to 4 P.M. On January 2, 1944, the barge, which had lifted the cargo of flour, was made fast off the end of Pier 58 on the Manhattan side of the North River, whence she was later shifted to Pier 52. At some time not disclosed, five other barges were moored outside her, extending into the river. Her lines to the pier were not then strengthened. The Grace Line, which had chartered the tug, “Carroll,” sent her down to the locus in quo to “drill” out one of the barges which lay at the end of the Public Pier. In order to do so it was necessary to throw off the line between the two tiers. On board the “Carroll” at the time were not only her master, but a “harbormaster” employed by the Grace Line. The captain of the “Carroll” put a deckhand and the “harbormaster” on the barges. He told them to throw off the line which barred the entrance to the slip, but before doing so to make sure that the tier on Pier 52 was safely moored, as there was a strong northerly wind blowing down the river. The “harbormaster” and the deckhand went aboard the barges and readjusted all the fasts to their satisfaction, including those from the “Anna C,” to the pier. After doing so, they threw off the line between the two tiers and again boarded the “Carroll,” which backed away from the outside barge, preparatory to “drilling” out the barge she was after in the tier off the Public Pier. She had only got about seventy-five feet away when the tier off Pier 52 broke adrift because the fasts from the “Anna C,” either rendered or carried away. The tide and wind carried down the six barges, still holding together, until the “Anna C” fetched up against a tanker, lying on the north side of the pier below — Pier 51 — whose propeller broke a hole in her at or near her bottom. Shortly thereafter, at about 2:15 P.M., she careened and dumped her cargo of flour. She sank. The bargee had left her on the evening before, and nobody was on board to observe that she was leaking. The Grace Line wishes to exonerate itself from all liability because the “harbormaster” was not authorized to pass on the sufficiency of the fasts of the “Anna C” which held the tier to Pier 52. The Carroll Company wishes to charge the Grace Line with the entire liability because the “harbormaster” was given an over-all authority. Both wish to charge the “Anna C” with a share of all her damages, or at least with so much as resulted from her sinking. The Pennsylvania Railroad Company also wishes to hold the barge liable. The Conners Company wishes the decrees to be affirmed.
View caseMusa Mensah obtains an interlocutory ruling in district court fixing liability for a collision at sea. The losing party seeks immediate appeal. The court of appeals accepts the appeal because the order determines rights in an admiralty case and federal statute permits review of such decrees.
No. Article III extends federal judicial power to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, which includes disputes arising on navigable inland waters as well as the high seas when the matter involves traditional maritime activities.
Supporting sources
Yes. The rules expressly state that they govern civil cases and proceedings including admiralty and maritime cases, so evidentiary standards remain uniform across such actions.
Supporting sources
Yes. Federal courts routinely uphold reasonable forum-selection clauses in maritime contracts such as cruise tickets when the clause is fundamentally fair and the passenger had notice of it.
No. Even when an incident occurs within maritime jurisdiction, Congress must still demonstrate that the regulated activity substantially affects interstate commerce. A bare maritime setting does not expand enumerated powers.
Supporting sources
Courts apply a balancing test that weighs the burden of adequate precautions against the probability and gravity of resulting harm, as illustrated in the classic barge-mooring scenario.
…253, 257 (D. Douglas ed. 1955). A decade before the Revolution, England gave jurisdiction over Stamp Act offenses to the admiralty courts, which followed civil-law rather than common-law procedures and thus routinely took testimony by deposition or private judicial examination. See 5 Geo. 3, c. 12, § 57 (1765);…