 | This article needs additional citations for verification .(October 2008) |
Admiralty law in the United States is a matter of federal law.
| | This article needs additional citations for verification .(October 2008) |
Admiralty law in the United States is a matter of federal law.
In the United States, the federal district courts have jurisdiction over all admiralty and maritime actions; see 28 U.S.C. § 1333.
In recent years, a non-historically-based conspiracy argument used by tax protesters is that an American court displaying an American flag with a gold fringe is in fact an "admiralty court" and thus has no jurisdiction. Courts have repeatedly dismissed this as frivolous. [1] In United States v. Greenstreet, the court summarized their finding to this argument with, "Unfortunately for Defendant Greenstreet, decor is not a determinant for jurisdiction." [2]
A state court hearing an admiralty or maritime case is required to apply the admiralty and maritime law, even if it conflicts with the law of the state, under a doctrine known as the "reverse-Erie doctrine." The Erie doctrine, derived from Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins , directs that federal courts hearing state actions must apply state law. The "reverse-Erie doctrine" directs that state courts hearing admiralty cases must apply federal admiralty law. This distinction is critical in some cases.
For instance, U.S. maritime law recognizes the concept of joint and several liability among tortfeasors, while many states do not. Under joint and several liability, where two or more people create a single injury or loss, all are equally liable, even if they contributed only a small amount. A state court hearing an admiralty case would be required to apply the doctrine of joint and several liability even if state law does not contemplate the concept.
One of the unique aspects of maritime law is the ability of a shipowner to limit its liability to the value of a ship after a major accident. An example of the use of the Limitation Act is the sinking of the RMS Titanic in 1912. Even though the Titanic had never been to the United States, upon her sinking the owners rushed into the federal courts in New York to file a limitation of liability proceeding. The Limitation Act provides that if an accident happens due to a circumstance which is beyond the "privity and knowledge" of the ship's owners, the owners can limit their liability to the value of the ship after it sinks.
After the Titanic sank, the only portions of the ship remaining were the 14 lifeboats, which had a collective value of about $3,000. This was added to the "pending freight"—which means the ship's earnings from the trip from both passenger fares and freight charges [3] —to reach a total liability of about $91,000. The cost of a first-class, parlor suite ticket was over $4,350. The owners of the Titanic were successful in showing that the sinking occurred without their privity and knowledge, and therefore, the families of the deceased passengers, as well as the surviving passengers who lost their personal belongings, were entitled only to split the $91,000.
Another example was when Transocean filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas in 2010 to limit its liability to just its interest in the Deepwater Horizon which it valued at $26,764,083. This was in the wake of billions of dollars liabilities resulting from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill that followed the sinking. [4]
The Limitation Act does not apply just to large ships. It can be used to insulate a motorboat owner from liability when he loans his boat to another who then has an accident. Even jet ski owners have been able to successfully invoke the Limitation Act to insulate themselves from liability. An unusual application involved the case Grubart v. Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Company, where a vessel performing piling operations in the Chicago River punctured a tunnel and caused the 1992 Chicago flood of many underground areas of the city’s downtown; the courts ruled that the vessel was in navigable waters covered by the admiralty law limitation clause.
Many shipping contracts include "safe berth" clauses that assure that the area around the intended dock is clear for the arriving vessel. This has been determined by the Supreme Court to be a warranty of safety from the entity requesting the shipping, placing the burden of clearing the area and any subsequently liability for failure to do so on that entity rather than the vessel owner, as determined in the 2020 case CITGO Asphalt Refining Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co. resulting from the oil spill on the Delaware River in 2004.
Claims for damage to cargo shipped by ocean carrier in international commerce into and out of the United States are governed by the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA), which is the U.S. enactment of the Hague Rules. One of its key features is that a carrier is liable for cargo damaged from "hook to hook," meaning from loading to discharge, unless it is exonerated under one of 17 exceptions to liability, such as an "act of God," the inherent nature of the goods, errors in navigation, and management of the ship. A shipowner is generally entitled to limit its liability to $500 per package, unless the value of the contents is disclosed and marked on the container. There is significant litigation as to what constitutes a "package" for purposes of determining liability under COGSA. This practice has resulted in substantial and continuing litigation in the United States. Federal Courts in the United States, however, are reluctant to treat an ocean shipping container as a single COGSA package. The statute of limitations on cargo claims is one year.
Seamen injured aboard ship have three possible sources of compensation: the principle of maintenance and cure, the doctrine of unseaworthiness, and the Jones Act. The principle of maintenance and cure requires a shipowner to both pay for an injured seaman's medical treatment until maximum medical recovery (MMR) is obtained and provide basic living expenses until completion of the voyage, even if the seaman is no longer aboard ship. The seaman is entitled to maintenance and cure as of right, unless he was injured due to his own willful gross negligence. It is similar in some ways to workers' compensation. The doctrine of unseaworthiness makes a shipowner liable if a seaman is injured because the ship, or any appliance of the ship, is "unseaworthy," meaning defective in some way. The Jones Act allows a sailor, or one in privity to him, to sue the shipowner in tort for personal injury or wrongful death, with trial by jury. The Jones Act incorporates the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA), which governs injuries to railway workers, and is similar to the Coal Miners Act. A shipowner is liable to a seaman in the same way a railroad operator is to its employees who are injured due to the negligence of the employer. The statute of limitation is three years.
Not every worker injured on board a vessel is a "seaman" entitled to the protections offered by the Jones Act, doctrine of unseaworthiness, and principle of maintenance and cure. To be considered a seaman, a worker must generally spend 30% or more of his working hours onboard either a specific vessel or a fleet of vessels under common ownership or control. With few exceptions, all non-seamen workers injured over navigable waters are covered instead by the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 901 – 950, a separate form of workers' compensation.
In the United States, U.S. individuals "evacuated on US government-coordinated transport, including charter and military flights or ships, even if those transports are provided by another country's government, must sign an Evacuee Manifest and Promissory Note (Form DS-5528) note prior to departure." [5] This note is used as a reference, which is later used to issue a bill to these evacuees for the maximum practical reimbursement. [5] Evacuees taking coordinated U.S. government transportation are required by law to pay the cost of reasonable commercial transport fare to the destination that was designated prior to the incident that resulted in the need for evacuation. [6] There is an option for a repatriation loan program, which is issued by the Secretary of State in regards to 11 different requirements, including requiring a verifiable address and social security number and a written agreement with a repayment schedule from the borrower. [6] The payment of the loan should be issued to the U.S. Department of State through the Comptroller and Global Financial Services office, in full and on time. Therefore, avoiding interest payments and other legal penalties, including the prevention of renewal or issuance of a U.S. passport. [5]
The "agony of collision" is a defense to a statutory claim of negligence in ship collisions. [7] [8]
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.
The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) was passed by the 101st United States Congress and signed by President George H. W. Bush. It works to avoid oil spills from vessels and facilities by enforcing removal of spilled oil and assigning liability for the cost of cleanup and damage; requires specific operating procedures; defines responsible parties and financial liability; implements processes for measuring damages; specifies damages for which violators are liable; and establishes a fund for damages, cleanup, and removal costs. This statute has resulted in instrumental changes in the oil production, transportation, and distribution industries.
The Merchant Marine Act of 1920 is a United States federal statute that provides for the promotion and maintenance of the American merchant marine. Among other purposes, the law regulates maritime commerce in U.S. waters and between U.S. ports. Section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act is known as the Jones Act and deals with cabotage. It requires that all goods transported by water between U.S. ports be carried on ships that have been constructed in the United States and that fly the U.S. flag, are owned by U.S. citizens, and are crewed by U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents. The act was introduced by Senator Wesley Jones. The law also defines certain seaman's rights.
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.
Marine insurance covers the physical loss or damage of ships, cargo, terminals, and any transport by which the property is transferred, acquired, or held between the points of origin and the final destination. Cargo insurance is the sub-branch of marine insurance, though marine insurance also includes onshore and offshore exposed property,, hull, marine casualty, and marine liability. When goods are transported by mail or courier or related post, shipping insurance is used instead.
A charterparty is a maritime contract between a shipowner and a "charterer" for the hire of either a ship for the carriage of passengers or cargo, or a yacht for pleasure purposes.
The maritime lien is one of three in rem claims capable of being brought under UK Admiralty Law. Whilst being a common law instrument, it has been codified under s.21(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 along with s.21(2) and s.21(4), its statutory counterparts. Maritime lien and ship mortgage have a single corresponding term in the civil law, namely the ship hypothec.
The Seamen's Act, formally known as Act to Promote the Welfare of American Seamen in the Merchant Marine of the United States or Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, was designed to improve the safety and security of United States seamen and eliminate shanghaiing.
The Hague Rules of 1924 is an international convention to impose minimum standards upon commercial carriers of goods by sea. Previously, only the common law provided protection to cargo-owners; but the Hague Rules should not be seen as a "consumers' charter" for shippers because the 1924 Convention actually favoured carriers and reduced their obligations to shippers.
The Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 901–950, commonly referred to as the "Longshore Act" or "LHWCA" is federal workers' compensation law/act enacted in 1927. Initially, it mandated coverage to employees injured on navigable waters of the United States. Today, it mandates that coverage be provided to certain "maritime" workers, including most dock workers and maritime workers not otherwise covered by the Jones Act. In addition, Congress has extended the LHWCA to cover non-appropriated fund employees, Outer Continental Shelf workers, and U.S. government contractors working in foreign countries under the Defense Base Act This coverage is mandated for all employees, including owners and officers of companies that work in or around navigable waters of the United States.
Affreightment is a legal term relating to shipping.
The law of salvage is a principle of maritime law whereby any person who helps recover another person's ship or cargo in peril at sea is entitled to a reward commensurate with the value of the property saved.
Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend, 557 U.S. 404 (2009), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that a seaman may recover punitive damages from his employer for failure to pay maintenance and cure. Townsend reversed a line of cases, starting with Guevara v. Maritime Overseas Corp. in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, that restricted damages in maritime personal injury cases only to "pecuniary" damages. Consequently, a seaman can now recover both attorney's fees and punitive damages for the willful and wanton refusal of a shipowner to provide medical care to a seaman injured on the job. The Court's 5-4 opinion was delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas.
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.
The Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA) is a United States admiralty law enacted by the United States Congress. It was originally intended to permit "recovery of damages against a shipowner by a spouse, child or dependent family member of a seaman killed in international waters" in wrongful death cases "caused by negligence or unseaworthiness." It also applies to cases arising out of airline disasters over the high seas that occur beyond the 12-nautical miles of U.S. territorial waters.
In United States maritime law, the Limitation of Liability Act of 1851, codified as 46 U.S.C. § 30501 since February 1, 2010, states that the owner of a vessel may limit damage claims to the value of the vessel at the end of the voyage plus "pending freight", as long as the owner can prove it lacked knowledge of the problem beforehand. This Act was the subject of a 2001 United States Supreme Court case in Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc.
Seaworthiness is a concept that runs through maritime law in at least four contractual relationships. In a marine insurance voyage policy, the assured warrants that the vessel is seaworthy. A carrier of goods by sea owes a duty to a shipper of cargo that the vessel is seaworthy at the start of the voyage. A shipowner warrants to a charterer that the vessel under charter is seaworthy; and similarly, a shipbuilder warrants that the vessel under construction will be seaworthy.
SS Kalibia v Wilson, was the first decision of the High Court of Australia on the extent of the power of the Australian Parliament to make laws about shipping and navigation, including the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court. The High Court held that the power was limited to overseas and interstate trade and commerce. There was no separate power about navigation and shipping.
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.