Cleveland Terminal and Valley R. Co. v. Cleveland S. S. Co.

Last updated
Cleveland Terminal and Valley Railway v. Cleveland Steamship Co.
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 17–18, 1907
Decided February 24, 1908
Full case nameCleveland Terminal and Valley Railroad Company v. Cleveland Steamship Company
Citations208 U.S. 316 ( more )
28 S. Ct. 414; 52 L. Ed. 508
Case history
PriorOn appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division
Court membership
Chief Justice
Melville Fuller
Associate Justices
John M. Harlan  · David J. Brewer
Edward D. White  · Rufus W. Peckham
Joseph McKenna  · Oliver W. Holmes Jr.
William R. Day  · William H. Moody
Case opinion
MajorityFuller, joined by a unanimous court

Cleveland Terminal and Valley Railway Co. v. Cleveland Steamship Co., 208 U.S. 316 (1908), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that damages caused to a bridge pier, bridge protective pilings, and docks by a vessel on navigable waters was not a cause for action under United States maritime law. The ruling was legislatively overturned in 1948.

Contents

Background

The Moore wedged between the riverside docks and the east pier of the viaduct. Results of the 1904 Cleveland flood.jpg
The Moore wedged between the riverside docks and the east pier of the viaduct.

The Cuyahoga River in the U.S. state of Ohio began to flood about January 21, 1904, after two days of continuous rain and a sudden spring thaw melted the area's snowpack and river ice. The 400-foot (120 m) unpowered ore barge William E. Reis was moored to some timber pilings located near Columbus Street in Cleveland, Ohio. The heavily laden Reis broke free and began floating downriver. [1] She crashed into the 246-foot (75 m) steamboat John W. Moore and the 416-foot (127 m) steamboat James B. Eads, doing heavy damage to them and tearing both loose from their moorings. All three vessels continued to float stern-first down the swift, flood-swollen Cuyahoga, the unladen Eads and Moore proceeding downstream faster. The Cleveland, Terminal and Valley Railway (CT&V) owned a swing bridge over the Cuyahoga, located near the intersection of Riverbed and Sycamore Streets. The operators managed to open the swing in the hope that the vessels would pass by. The stern of the Eads struck the east pier of the Superior Viaduct (a bridge carrying Superior Avenue across the river), and her bow swung into the center of the river [2] —striking the center pier of the CT&V swing bridge. [3] The Moore, following the Eads, struck a dock co-owned by the CT&V and the Detroit & Cleveland Navigation Company and then jammed stern first into the space between the eastern pier of the Superior Viaduct and the bank of the river. The bow of the Moore then was forced by the floodwaters against the shore, crushing the dock. [2] The Reis became wedged between the other two vessels. [4]

The three vessels partially dammed the river. The river’s now constrained and redirected current undermined the ships and carved away a large portion of the riverbed, [5] doing considerable damage to the piers of the CT&V swing bridge and the Superior Viaduct. [6]

The owners of the vessels damaged by the Reis sued in rem to recover their costs. [6] The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, which owned a controlling interest in the CT&V, [7] also sued to recover the cost of repairing the swing bridge pier and pilings and the dock. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, sitting as a court of admiralty, found that the ship's owners had failed to properly staff the vessel during the flood, and that the lone shipkeeper aboard the Reis had failed to properly maintain the vessel's moorings during the flood. [8] But United States maritime law, the district court said, did not permit the CT&V from recovering its costs. The dock, pier, and pilings were neither "an instrument of or an aid to navigation", it held, and thus no action was available to the railroad under maritime law. [9]

The railroad appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which upheld the district court. [8]

The railway appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Ruling

Chief Justice Melville Fuller delivered the opinion of the unanimous court. [10]

In The Plymouth (1866), 70U.S.20 (U.S.1865)., aff'd.Ex Parte Phenix Ins. Co., 118U.S.610 (U.S.1886)., the Supreme Court had held that a case for damages under maritime law could proceed only if "the substance and consummation" of the wrong had taken place on navigable waters. In each case, the fact that a fire began aboard a ship and spread to land did not bring the tort under admiralty law. In Johnson v. Chicago & Pac. Elev. Co., 119U.S.388 (U.S.1886)., the Supreme Court held that there was no cause under maritime law in the case where a ship's jib struck a building on land. However, in The Blackheath, 195U.S.361 (U.S.1904)., the Supreme Court had held that damage to a maritime navigation beacon permanently attached to the sea floor was properly brought under admiralty law. The Blackheath appeared to overrule the previous cases. [11]

The Court held that The Blackheath had properly distinguished a purely maritime aid to navigation (like a beacon) attached to the bed beneath navigable waters from other structures. "[T]he bridges, shore docks, protection piling, piers, etc., pertained to the land. They were structures connected with the shore and immediately concerned commerce upon land. None of these structures were aids to navigation in the maritime sense, but extensions of the shore, and aids to commerce on land as such," Fuller wrote. [12]

The judgement of the district court was affirmed. [13]

Subsequent developments

The "aids to navigation" rule outlined in Cleveland Terminal and Valley Railway was widely incorporated into American admiralty jurisprudence over the next 40 years. In The Troy, 208U.S.321 (U.S.1908)., the Supreme Court dismissed per curiam a case where a vessel had struck a railroad bridge over the Mississippi River. The high court similarly dismissed per curiam a cause for action in The Phoenix Construction Co. v. Steamer Poughkeepsie,212U.S.558(U.S.1908). (a vessel struck a pipe lying on the riverbed). In Martin v. West, 222U.S.191 (U.S.1911)., the Supreme Court permitted a cause for damages to go forward because it was not filed as a maritime action. [6] Cleveland Terminal and Valley Railway was explicitly upheld by the Court in The Raithmoor, 241U.S.166 (U.S.1916).. There, the court held that a navigational beacon still under construction qualified as an "aid to navigation", and its incomplete nature (nor the temporary construction structures supporting that construction) did not remove it from admiralty jurisdiction. [14]

The definition of "aid to navigation" began to become cloudy, however, after The Panoil, 266U.S.433 (U.S.1925). In that case, a ship struck and damaged a levee that had been constructed on a riverbed. The levee was designed to aid navigation by gathering silt (which otherwise would spread into the ship channel), and was not connected to the shore. [15] Nevertheless, the Supreme Court said, "We think the principle of those cases [Blackheath, Raithmoor] does not go so far. The dike constitutes an extension of the shore, and must be regarded as land." [16] The court held no case could proceed under maritime law. [15] The Supreme Court further muddied the waters with its ruling in Doullut and Williams Co. v. United States, 268U.S.33 (U.S.1925). Various ships had damaged pilings driven into a riverbed and used for mooring. At trial, the parties agreed that the pilings were not an aid to navigation. Yet, the Supreme Court without explanation reversed this finding and permitted the cause for damages to go forward under admiralty law. [17]

The Supreme Court's ruling in Cleveland Terminal and Valley Railway Co. v. Cleveland Steamship Co. stood until 1948. That year, Congress enacted the Extension of Admiralty Jurisdiction Act , which extended tort claims under U.S. maritime law to include cases caused by a vessel on navigable waters, whether or not the action occurred or was consummated on land. [18]

Related Research Articles

Admiralty law or maritime law is a body of law that governs nautical issues and private maritime disputes. Admiralty law consists of both domestic law on maritime activities, and private international law governing the relationships between private parties operating or using ocean-going ships. While each legal jurisdiction usually has its own legislation governing maritime matters, the international nature of the topic and the need for uniformity has, since 1900, led to considerable international maritime law developments, including numerous multilateral treaties.

Admiralty courts, also known as maritime courts, are courts exercising jurisdiction over all maritime contracts, torts, injuries, and offences.

SS <i>William G. Mather</i> (1925) Museum ship in Cleveland, Ohio

The SS William G. Mather is a retired Great Lakes bulk freighter now restored as a museum ship in Cleveland, Ohio, one of five in the Great Lakes region. She transported cargo such as ore, coal, stone, and grain to ports throughout the Great Lakes, and was nicknamed "The Ship That Built Cleveland" because Cleveland's steel mills were a frequent destination.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Port of London Authority</span> Port authority in the United Kingdom

The Port of London Authority (PLA) is a self-funding public trust established on 31 March 1909 in accordance with the Port of London Act 1908 to govern the Port of London. Its responsibility extends over the Tideway of the River Thames and its continuation. It maintains and supervises navigation, and protects the river's environment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Port of Hong Kong</span> Port in Hong Kong

The Port of Hong Kong, located by the South China Sea, is a deepwater seaport dominated by trade in containerised manufactured products, and to a lesser extent raw materials and passengers. A key factor in the economic development of Hong Kong, the natural shelter and deep waters of Victoria Harbour provide ideal conditions for berthing and the handling of all types of vessels. It is one of the busiest ports in the world, in the three categories of shipping movements, cargo handled and passengers carried. This makes Hong Kong a Large-Port Metropolis.

In rem jurisdiction is a legal term describing the power a court may exercise over property or a "status" against a person over whom the court does not have in personam jurisdiction. Jurisdiction in rem assumes the property or status is the primary object of the action, rather than personal liabilities not necessarily associated with the property.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Halifax Harbour</span> Harbour in Nova Scotia, Canada

Halifax Harbour is a large natural harbour on the Atlantic coast of Nova Scotia, Canada, located in the Halifax Regional Municipality. Halifax largely owes its existence to the harbour, being one of the largest and deepest ice-free natural harbours in the world. Before Confederation it was one of the most important commercial ports on the Atlantic seaboard. In 1917, it was the site of the world's largest man-made accidental explosion, when the SS Mont-Blanc blew up in the Halifax Explosion of December 6.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Port of Dover</span> Cross-channel port situated in Dover, Kent, south-east England

The Port of Dover is a cross-channel ferry, cruise terminal, maritime cargo and marina facility situated in Dover, Kent, south-east England. It is the nearest English port to France, at just 34 kilometres (21 mi) away, and is one of the world's busiest maritime passenger ports, with 11.7 million passengers, 2.6 million lorries, 2.2 million cars and motorcycles and 80,000 coaches passing through it in 2017, and with an annual turnover of £58.5 million a year. This contrasts with the nearby Channel Tunnel, the only fixed link between the island of Great Britain and the European mainland, which now handles an estimated 20 million passengers and 1.6 million trucks per year.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dolphin (structure)</span> Man-made marine structure

A dolphin is a group of pilings arrayed together to serve variously as a protective hardpoint along a dock, in a waterway, or along a shore; as a means or point of stabilization of a dock, bridge, or similar structure; as a mooring point; and as a base for navigational aids.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Seastreak</span> Private ferry company in New York and New Jersey

Seastreak is a private ferry company operating in the Port of New York and New Jersey and in New England. It provides high-speed commuter service between points on the Raritan Bayshore in Monmouth County, New Jersey and in Manhattan in New York City as well as special event and sightseeing excursions in the harbor and seasonal service to the New England coast.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Port of Cleveland</span> Port in United States

The Port of Cleveland is a bulk freight and container shipping port at the mouth of the Cuyahoga River on Lake Erie in Cleveland, Ohio, United States. It is the third-largest port in the Great Lakes and the fourth-largest Great Lakes port by annual tonnage. Over 20,000 jobs and $3.5 billion in annual economic activity are tied to the roughly 13 million tons of cargo that move through Cleveland Harbor each year.

Admiralty law in the United States is a matter of federal law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Aberdeen Harbour</span> Port on the north east coast of Scotland

Aberdeen Harbour, rebranded as the Port of Aberdeen in 2022, is a sea port located in the city of Aberdeen on the east coast of Scotland. The port was first established in 1136 and has been continually redeveloped over the centuries to provide a base for significant fishing and ship building industries. Since the 1970s it has provided support to the offshore oil and gas industry operating in the North Sea and it is the main commercial port in the north east of Scotland.

The status of a seaman in admiralty law provides maritime workers with protections such as payment of wages, working conditions, and remedies for workplace injuries under the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, and the doctrines of "unseaworthiness" and "maintenance and cure". Each of these remedies have the same criteria for the status of "seaman". Having the status of "seaman" provides maritime employees with benefits that are not available to those without the status. However, the determination of who is a "seaman" is complex.

Rule B attachments are issued under Rule B of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under that provision, the court is allowed to attach a defendant's property up to the value of the suit. Although these claims are filed during in personam actions, they are in rem in nature, as the Court is attaching property to the suit. This has been described as a "remedy quasi in rem."

The Valley Railway was a shortline railroad which operated between the city of Cleveland and small town of Zoarville in the state of Ohio in the United States. The railroad was founded in 1871, but the first segment of track did not open until 1880 and the line was not completed until 1884. The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad (B&O) obtained a controlling interest in the Valley Railway in 1890. The railroad went bankrupt in 1895, at which time it was reorganized as The Cleveland Terminal and Valley Railroad Company (CT&V). The B&O took over operation of the CT&V in 1909, and the company was merged with the B&O in 1915.

Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc., 398 U.S. 375 (1970) is a United States Supreme Court case addressing the remedies under federal maritime law for tortious deaths on state territorial waters.

Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 568 U.S. 115 (2013), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a vessel in admiralty law is something that a reasonable observer would consider designed for water transportation. The case arose from an in rem suit brought under admiralty jurisdiction by the city of Riviera Beach, Florida, against a floating home owned by resident Fane Lozman. Lozman argued that the floating home, which had no means by which to propel itself, was not a vessel under the Rules of Construction Act and thus not subject to admiralty jurisdiction. The Court resolved a circuit split as to what it means for a vessel to be "capable" of transportation by creating the reasonable observer standard, ruling in Lozman's favor.

<i>Telegraph</i> (sternwheeler 1903)

Telegraph was a sternwheel-driven steamboat built in 1903 in Everett, Washington. Except for the summer of 1905, from 1903 to 1912, Telegraph served in Puget Sound, running mainly on the route from Seattle to Everett, and also from Seattle to Tacoma and Olympia, Washington.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Callendar Navigation Company</span>

The Callendar Navigation Company, sometimes seen as the Callendar Transportation Company, started in business in the early 1900s. Callendar was formed in the early 1900s, and was based in Astoria, Oregon. Callender was to become one of six large towing companies of the Columbia and Willamette rivers in the early decades of the 1900s, the others being Shaver Transportation, Smith Transportation, Hosford, Knappton Towing Co., and Willamette and Columbia River Towing Co. In 1922, Callendar Navigation merged with Knappton Towboat Co., which existed, with a name change in 1990, and which became part of Foss Marine in 1993.

References

  1. ↑ "Damage By Flood Will Reach A Half Million". The Plain Dealer. January 23, 1904. p. 1.
  2. 1 2 Secretary of War 1904, p. 3806.
  3. ↑ "Vessel Jam Is Broken At Last". The Plain Dealer. January 31, 1904. p. 1.
  4. ↑ Secretary of War 1904, p. 3807.
  5. ↑ "Jam Tightens As River Falls". The Plain Dealer. January 25, 1904. p. 1.
  6. 1 2 3 Robinson 1936, p. 721.
  7. ↑ "The Deal Clinched". The Plain Dealer. January 9, 1890. p. 2.
  8. 1 2 The William E. Reis, 82C.C.A.21 , 22(6th Cir.1907).
  9. ↑ Cleveland Terminal and Valley R. Co. v. Cleveland S. S. Co., 208U.S.316 , 317-318(U.S.1908).
  10. ↑ Cleveland Terminal and Valley R. Co. v. Cleveland S. S. Co., 208U.S.316 , 319(U.S.1908).
  11. ↑ Cleveland Terminal and Valley R. Co. v. Cleveland S. S. Co., 208U.S.316 , 319-321(U.S.1908).
  12. ↑ Cleveland Terminal and Valley R. Co. v. Cleveland S. S. Co., 208U.S.316 , 320-321(U.S.1908).
  13. ↑ Cleveland Terminal and Valley R. Co. v. Cleveland S. S. Co., 208U.S.316 , 321(U.S.1908).
  14. ↑ Robinson 1936, pp. 720–721.
  15. 1 2 Robinson 1936, pp. 721–722.
  16. ↑ The Panoil, 266U.S.433 , 435(U.S.1925).
  17. ↑ Robinson 1936, p. 722.
  18. ↑ Force, Yiannopoulos & Davies 2006, p. 26.

Bibliography

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.