Another Damm Sailboat!

[mvweebles]

Has anyone in our class of boat ever been to an admiralty court? I can see the USCG yanking a license of someone, but have a hard time imagining anyone ending up in front of whatever an admiralty court may be. Something really, really bad would have to happen.

Civil Court, easy to imagine. Happens all the time I'm sure. I was hired once by an insurance company to give an expert opinion on an unoccupied boat that dragged down on another boat, both on their way to derelict status. They settled long before a court appearance.

Folks bandy about the term "Admiralty Court" all the time. If I wanted to go to once, where would I find one? Do they have their own appeals process? Do they handle both civil and criminal cases? What is their jurisdiction, meaning what type of damage would be adjudicated there vs the regular court system?

Peter

 

[HTurner]

Folks bandy about the term "Admiralty Court" all the time. If I wanted to go to once, where would I find one? Do they have their own appeals process? Do they handle both civil and criminal cases? What is their jurisdiction, meaning what type of damage would be adjudicated there vs the regular court system?

Peter

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/admiralty_court

 

[HTurner]

At the bottom of this page are interesting Admiralty Court sample jury instructions:


Admiralty and Maritime Law Guide - Courts

 

[mvweebles]

Interesting. Thanks.

Quick browse leads me to believe it would be dang hard for a recreational vessel to land in admiralty court. Jones Act violation, unseaworthiness (goes to inspected vessels), seaman status, etc. I think a Venn Diagram of recreational boating and Admiralty Court might include licensed Masters, but only when operating inspected vessels.

Peter

 

[HTurner]

Interesting. Thanks.

Quick browse leads me to believe it would be dang hard for a recreational vessel to land in admiralty court. Jones Act violation, unseaworthiness (goes to inspected vessels), seaman status, etc. I think a Venn Diagram of recreational boating and Admiralty Court might include licensed Masters, but only when operating inspected vessels.

Peter

True, but there are plenty of incidents that will you a tour of a state court system. Here is an example of an incident the occurred in my area a few days ago (tragic and avoidable), headed soon to state court:


https://www.kristv.com/news/local-n...s-crash-that-killed-port-aransas-boat-captain

 

[psneeld]

Almost faded into the woodwork....just one more hopefully.

Here is one example of a state's view on admiralty law, California is a another state big on recreational boating cases winding up in maritime court.

https://www.bluesteinlawoffice.com/...-maritime-law-to-pleasure-boats-and-jet-skis/

The general maritime law of the United States, which was once reserved for governing the maritime commerce of transporting cargoes and passengers over navigable waters, is now uniformly accepted as being applicable to recreational boaters using the navigable waterways of South Carolina. Admiralty law as compared to land based law has its own unique laws, regulations, standards, customs, actions and civil procedural rules. In addition, there are many South Carolina recreational boating laws that may supplement admiralty law.

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Recreational+boating+accidents:+Which+law+applies?-a077608232

Admiralty jurisdiction

To fall within federal admiralty jurisdiction and the general maritime law, a tort must meet a "locality" test and a two-prong "nexus" test. While providing no bright lines, these tests should enable practitioners to determine, in most cases, whether a case will "sound in admiralty."

The locality test requires that a tort occur on "navigable" waters. To be navigable for purposes of admiralty jurisdiction, a waterway must be usable as a highway for interstate commerce.(3) Ongoing or potential intrastate commerce does not confer admiralty jurisdiction.(4)

Accordingly, one-state waterways that connect to neither the open sea nor an interstate waterway are not navigable, nor are those that are usable only for recreational interstate travel.

In practice, this means that open seas and waterways actually used for interstate commerce are navigable as a matter of law. Whether other waterways are navigable for purposes of admiralty jurisdiction--that is, whether the waterway could be used for interstate commerce--is a question of fact.(5) If an accident did not occur on navigable waters as defined here, state law will control.

For accidents that do occur on navigable waters, federal admiralty jurisdiction will exist and general maritime law will control if the activities underlying the event have a sufficient nexus with traditional maritime activities. To meet the two-prong nexus requirement, the incident must have posed a "potential hazard to maritime commerce" and arisen "out of activity that bears a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity."(6)

To satisfy the first prong, an event need not have actually disrupted maritime commerce. It is enough if the accident or event had the potential to do so. Because all that is needed is potential disruption, few maritime accidents will fail to satisfy this requirement. Events that might have resulted in rescue or salvage operations; that might have left debris, pollution, or damaged vessels in the water; or that in any other way might have impeded the passage of commercial vessels, would all have the potential to disrupt maritime commerce.

The second prong of the nexus test--requiring that a tort arise "out of an activity that bears a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity"--rules out few, if any, boating accidents. Because the U.S. Supreme Court has held that a boat docked for storage and maintenance was engaged in traditional maritime activity,(7) "it is difficult to conceive of anything that a boat could do in the water which would not qualify as a traditional maritime activity."(8) Most accidents involving PWC are also likely to be deemed to have a sufficient nexus with traditional maritime activity to fall within admiralty jurisdiction.(9)

 

[mvweebles]

Almost faded into the woodwork....just one more hopefully.

Here is one example of a state's view on admiralty law, California is a another state big on recreational boating cases winding up in maritime court.

https://www.bluesteinlawoffice.com/...-maritime-law-to-pleasure-boats-and-jet-skis/

The general maritime law of the United States, which was once reserved for governing the maritime commerce of transporting cargoes and passengers over navigable waters, is now uniformly accepted as being applicable to recreational boaters using the navigable waterways of South Carolina. Admiralty law as compared to land based law has its own unique laws, regulations, standards, customs, actions and civil procedural rules. In addition, there are many South Carolina recreational boating laws that may supplement admiralty law.

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Recreational+boating+accidents:+Which+law+applies?-a077608232

Admiralty jurisdiction

To fall within federal admiralty jurisdiction and the general maritime law, a tort must meet a "locality" test and a two-prong "nexus" test. While providing no bright lines, these tests should enable practitioners to determine, in most cases, whether a case will "sound in admiralty."

The locality test requires that a tort occur on "navigable" waters. To be navigable for purposes of admiralty jurisdiction, a waterway must be usable as a highway for interstate commerce.(3) Ongoing or potential intrastate commerce does not confer admiralty jurisdiction.(4)

Accordingly, one-state waterways that connect to neither the open sea nor an interstate waterway are not navigable, nor are those that are usable only for recreational interstate travel.

In practice, this means that open seas and waterways actually used for interstate commerce are navigable as a matter of law. Whether other waterways are navigable for purposes of admiralty jurisdiction--that is, whether the waterway could be used for interstate commerce--is a question of fact.(5) If an accident did not occur on navigable waters as defined here, state law will control.

For accidents that do occur on navigable waters, federal admiralty jurisdiction will exist and general maritime law will control if the activities underlying the event have a sufficient nexus with traditional maritime activities. To meet the two-prong nexus requirement, the incident must have posed a "potential hazard to maritime commerce" and arisen "out of activity that bears a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity."(6)

To satisfy the first prong, an event need not have actually disrupted maritime commerce. It is enough if the accident or event had the potential to do so. Because all that is needed is potential disruption, few maritime accidents will fail to satisfy this requirement. Events that might have resulted in rescue or salvage operations; that might have left debris, pollution, or damaged vessels in the water; or that in any other way might have impeded the passage of commercial vessels, would all have the potential to disrupt maritime commerce.

The second prong of the nexus test--requiring that a tort arise "out of an activity that bears a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity"--rules out few, if any, boating accidents. Because the U.S. Supreme Court has held that a boat docked for storage and maintenance was engaged in traditional maritime activity,(7) "it is difficult to conceive of anything that a boat could do in the water which would not qualify as a traditional maritime activity."(8) Most accidents involving PWC are also likely to be deemed to have a sufficient nexus with traditional maritime activity to fall within admiralty jurisdiction.(9)

Interesting. Thanks for rejoining.

Interestingly, both URLs are from a plantiffs' attorney perspective. Apparently, by filing in a maritime court, some liability caps are lifted (red meat to a plantiff's attorney), but there are time limits on filing which is the urgency to be aware of maritime law (in other words, hire the author).

The Nav Rules still apply, but in the case of death or injury, the lawyers will descend and pick over your actions with a fine tooth comb. No surprise there - especially in America. The old saw about being able to indict a ham sandwich comes to mind.

Thanks Psneeld - I learned a bit today. I'll still nudge folks to set aside the "it depends" tendency, but this certainly gave more context.

Peter

 

[garbler]

Wow you guys are a close audience and obviously not a bunch that lets shallow observations and ill thought out remarks pass. I’m beginning to enjoy your company more and more. I’m no sage by any account but just some old guy with a bit more exposure in this world and a penchant for research and my library. Anyway Admiralty Courts are federal and as such require a high bar for entrance. Federal courts that hear Admiralty matters are few and far between and even though they are federal most judges are not qualified to set on maritime legal cases unless an overloaded docket forces it.

A casualty can occur in lets say Coos Bay but must be tried in a San Francisco or San Diego Admiralty court so imagine the costs. An attorney must alway have Admiralty experience and a standing to stand in these courts. The bottom line is a case in Federal Courts cost much much more, delays are longer and Federal judges are famous for cleaving away the BS and cropping long lists of so-called forensic experts to expedite the process. Not just any forensic expert can testify they must almost always be on the list of federally approved witnesses.

Twice I’ve been flown to trials, housed in nice hotels and prepped for a hearing only to have the judge say something along the line of ‘ you sir are going to say this and you sir just the opposite ‘ so you’re dismissed in order to speed the trial up. Oh well pay me. Frankly there are way too many experts for hire with no other real business than working for attornies anyway. They construct reports to bolster the prosecution or defense and muddy the waters. The appeal process is very limited, more expensive and beyond my understanding.

On state waters, near coastal and inland most marine claims can be handled and adjudicated efficiently and fairly in state courts. Not always but generally. If the verdict is unacceptable and the legal teams try appealing to a Federal court it’s most often declined. More money and frustration for both sides. Too many attornies, too many questionable cases and over burdened courts. I had a death case where a go- fast boat hit the throttles on the Picataqua River between NH and ME digging a hole and elevating the bow so high it made visibility ahead near impossible. He ran right over the top of a small bow rider splattering the operators head with the prop. After three years, state jurisdiction was never established. Was it Maine or New Hampshire waters and sadly the dead man’s family never got a fair equitable settlement. Admiralty courts deferred and pockets were emptied. It made me sick

Rick

 

[mvweebles]

Wow you guys are a close audience and obviously not a bunch that lets shallow observations and ill thought out remarks pass. I’m beginning to enjoy your company more and more. I’m no sage by any account but just some old guy with a bit more exposure in this world and a penchant for research and my library. Anyway Admiralty Courts are federal and as such require a high bar for entrance. Federal courts that hear Admiralty matters are few and far between and even though they are federal most judges are not qualified to set on maritime legal cases unless an overloaded docket forces it.



A casualty can occur in lets say Coos Bay but must be tried in a San Francisco or San Diego Admiralty court so imagine the costs. An attorney must alway have Admiralty experience and a standing to stand in these courts. The bottom line is a case in Federal Courts cost much much more, delays are longer and Federal judges are famous for cleaving away the BS and cropping long lists of so-called forensic experts to expedite the process. Not just any forensic expert can testify they must almost always be on the list of federally approved witnesses.



Twice I’ve been flown to trials, housed in nice hotels and prepped for a hearing only to have the judge say something along the line of ‘ you sir are going to say this and you sir just the opposite ‘ so you’re dismissed in order to speed the trial up. Oh well pay me. Frankly there are way too many experts for hire with no other real business than working for attornies. They construct reports to bolster the prosecution or defense and muddy the waters. The appeal process is very limited, more expensive and beyond my understanding.



On state waters, near coastal and inland most marine claims can be handled and adjudicated efficiently and fairly in state courts. Not always but generally. If the verdict is unacceptable and the legal teams try appealing to a Federal court it’s most often declined. More money and frustration for both sides. Too many attornies, too many questionable cases and over burdened courts. I had a death case where a go- fast boat hit the throttles on the Picataqua River between NH and ME digging a hole and elevating the bow so high it made visibility ahead near impossible. He ran right over the top of a small bow rider splattering the operators head with the prop. After three years, state jurisdiction was never established. Was it Maine or New Hampshire waters and sadly the dead man’s family never got a fair equitable settlement. Admiralty courts deferred and pockets were emptied. It made me sick



Rick

Rick - certainly down in the weeds. You have much more experience than I do here, but reading the URLs Psneeld sent leads me to believe entry into maritime court system is much easier than I would have imagined. Wondering if something changed, or if I read it incorrectly? Basically, if it involves a boat of any type (even a moored barge - say a pontoon boat), and if happens on a waterway that could conceivably be used to transport goods ("Hey Scott - just popped the last beer. Wanna run to the marina and grab another half-rack?"), it's within the maritime courts jurisdiction.

Thoughts?

Peter

 

[psneeld]

By in the weeds, I assume that means every one of us average boaters and our need to know what is important.... my cut on the whole thing is some cases it is way in the advantage to file in a maritime vs state civil court due to the probability that expert use of the COLREGs will affect a positive outcome. A simple state trial with a jury not familiar with maritime law could be a disaster for some.

https://www.juryverdictalert.com/ju...cident/boating-accident-victims-leg-amputated


The Result
Gross Verdict or Award: $23,218,106.66
Award as to each Defendant:
80% to defendant Paul Garcia; 20% to defendant L M Sports, Inc.

Jointly and severally liable to plaintiff for all damages under admiralty law.

Economic Damages:
Past: $305,762.03

Future: $2,912,344.63 (to be present-valued by the court)

Non-Economic Damages:
Past: $8,000,000

Future: $12,000,000

Trial or Arbitration Time: 19 days - Bifurcated (10 days for liability; 9 days for damages).

 

[mvweebles]

By in the weeds, I assume that means every one of us average boaters and our need to know what is important.... my cut on the whole thing is some cases it is way in the advantage to file in a maritime vs state civil court due to the probability that expert use of the COLREGs will affect a positive outcome. A simple state trial with a jury not familiar with maritime law could be a disaster for some.

https://www.juryverdictalert.com/ju...cident/boating-accident-victims-leg-amputated


The Result
Gross Verdict or Award: $23,218,106.66
Award as to each Defendant:
80% to defendant Paul Garcia; 20% to defendant L M Sports, Inc.

Jointly and severally liable to plaintiff for all damages under admiralty law.

Economic Damages:
Past: $305,762.03

Future: $2,912,344.63 (to be present-valued by the court)

Non-Economic Damages:
Past: $8,000,000

Future: $12,000,000

Trial or Arbitration Time: 19 days - Bifurcated (10 days for liability; 9 days for damages).

So....a few people rent a boat on Lake Tahoe to pull people in a tube. They head out with little prior experience and not much instruction. They're out having a great day and go to pickup one of their riders in the water. The operator thinks he has put the boat in neutral but it's actually in reverse and accidentally backs-down on the woman in the water, jamming her leg between the counter-rotating props. It takes 40-minutes until paramedics arrive. She ultimately loses her leg.

If memory serves, there are 38 Nav Rules and 4 Annexes. Refresh my memory, which one is in-play here? Failure to give three blasts of the ships whistle when operating in reverse? BTW - this was not a jury trial, but a bench trial. I guess that's normal for admiralty law cases.

I'm missing the point here on why the reliance on "It Depends."

Peter

 

[backinblue]

If someone runs over a swimmer in the water, I can't imagine that faliure to sound the proper horn signal would play into the verdict.

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Mr. b. It depends...

 

[psneeld]

I will never try and imagine what some here will and won't think...

I just try and keep the average reader informed.

Back to the woodwork unless stirred again by outrageously incorrect info.

 

[backinblue]

Greetings,
Mr. b. It depends...

Good answer!

 

[HTurner]

If memory serves, there are 38 Nav Rules and 4 Annexes. Refresh my memory, which one is in-play here? Failure to give three blasts of the ships whistle when operating in reverse? BTW - this was not a jury trial, but a bench trial. I guess that's normal for admiralty law cases.

I'm missing the point here on why the reliance on "It Depends."

Peter

Without reading the court transcript you will not know the dependencies... This particular case may have been one where the venue was picked because is was a advantageous for the filing attorney to do so and no other reason.

 

[mvweebles]

....unless stirred again by outrageously incorrect info.

On that we agree!!!

Peter

 

[garbler]

I’m starting to get dizzy and don’t think I can keep up with you guys. Manana

Rick

 

[mvweebles]

Without reading the court transcript you will not know the dependencies... This particular case may have been one where the venue was picked because is was a advantageous for the filing attorney to do so and no other reason.

Having read through the URLs Psneeld posted upthread, appears there are definitely advantages to filing in admiralty court vs state court. Namely, if I read correctly, there is no cap on liability. No assumed risk assumption. As said before, red meat for a plantiffs attorney. Nothing to do with Nav Rules. Not sure the relevance or why it serves as a lesson to not render an opinion on Nav Rules.

Peter

 

[kthoennes]

As an:

1. English major, whose mother red-penciled my letters to grandma, and;
2. Having worked in the state courts my entire professional career, and;
3. A multiple boat owner and sailor, and;
4. The husband of an insurance company defense attorney, and;
5. My wife's maid of honor at our wedding happened to be her best friend from law school who now happens to be an admiralty law attorney...

This has been a fascinating discussion. I will only say two things for now. First, Shrew, in about the third post you wrote, "at the risk of being pedantic..." Ha! That ship sailed as soon as you typed those words, and a fleet followed behind you! Ha! And then Prof -- even though I played in the sawdust at the boat shed as a kid in Mystic, CT, and spent a week in Rockland Maine getting my head soaked from cold rainwater dripping through a poorly sealed deck prism above my bunk on a historic schooner -- I had no idea there was such a thing as a spanker sail, or a spanker boom. Looks like a plain old gaff rig to me, but okay, you raise it on a square-rigged tall ship and apparently it becomes s spanker. Something Freudian there, but hey, those sailors of yesteryear were deprived. Learn something new every day.

 

[AlaskaProf]

apparently it becomes a spanker. Something Freudian there, but hey, those sailors of yesteryear were deprived. Learn something new every day.

"originally regarded as a 'fair-weather' sail in place of the mizzen course...but after 1840 it became a standard sail set on the mizzen."
--Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea


[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]traditions of the Royal Navy: 'And what are they? They are rum, sodomy and the lash'.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]--Winston Churchill --1915
[/FONT]

 

[BruceK]

Has anyone in our class of boat ever been to an admiralty court?

Folks bandy about the term "Admiralty Court" all the time. If I wanted to go to once, where would I find one? Do they have their own appeals process? Do they handle both civil and criminal cases? What is their jurisdiction, meaning what type of damage would be adjudicated there vs the regular court system?

Peter

Only as a lawyer. Ours is a division of the Supreme Court. Used to administer the Merchant Shipping Act. In some circumstances damages were limited to the length of the ship multiplied by a modest number of French francs.
The advantage is the Judge will probably start with some knowledge of matters maritime. Others may not know the difference between port and starboard.

 

[Sababa]

Only as a lawyer. Ours is a division of the Supreme Court. Used to administer the Merchant Shipping Act. In some circumstances damages were limited to the length of the ship multiplied by a modest number of French francs.
The advantage is the Judge will probably start with some knowledge of matters maritime. Others may not know the difference between port and starboard.

In the US, per 28 USC 1333, admiralty and maritime jurisdiction is exclusively vested in the regular United States District Courts that hear regular civil and criminal matters. A US District Court is said to be “sitting in admiralty” when it acts as an admiralty court under this grant of jurisdiction. There are no specialized federal admiralty courts.

The admiralty and maritime jurisdiction extends to causes of action arising on the high seas or in connection with commerce on the high seas and navigable waters (and also to the condemnation of prizes—read your Patrick O’Brien!).

When I was clerking for the US District Court for the Western District of Washington we used to see quite a few cases involving personal injuries on fishing boats and cruise liners. We used to call them “slips on ships.”

 

[garbler]

I realize this thread is getting played out but I found it very interesting not only for the information but that it solicited some very knowledgeable players. Anyway I agree with those last posters who explain Admiralty matters are a matter for Federal courts but that these district courts are not just Admiralty specific. When they hear a maritime case they become an Admiralty court.

From my experience with attorneys and testifying, the way I understand it there is a lot of maneuvers trying to get your case in some locations and strong preferences for certain judges as not all federal judges know much about maritime law. Based on my limited experience I guess there is not a big pool of Admiralty judges ? The judge setting in these courts absolutely controls every aspect of the trial and since there is no jury it’s completely different. It becomes very apparent once things start that this is the judge’s house and you feel like a guest who better darn well follow his or her rules, orthodox or not. The judges I’m familiar with ask witnesses questions, dismiss them at will and sometimes the dialogue runs like a three or four way conversation, ie, plaintiff, defense, witness and judge. Bottom line the whole atmosphere and business is very eye opening.

Rick

 

[Hippocampus]

While in the Caribbean at the nightly elbow bending contests folks were up in arm’s about a recent case. Boat was at anchor inside a field of anchored boats. It was struck by a PWC who was zig zagging through the field at full throttle. He hit the boat amidships. Family sued. They people involved were from different countries and the event occurred in a third. Court assigned some liability to the anchored boat because he wasn’t flying a black ball. Whether something had any real world cause or contribution to an accident apparently has nothing to do with liability. I have no direct knowledge of this event. Just hearsay. Maritime law is different. Know your colregs

 

[NoRain]

…..If you hit the starboard side of an underway motorized vessel in a crossing situation, 99.99% of the time you're at fault (slightly lower percentage is intended).

Peter

What am I missing here? If I hit the starboard side of a vessel then I was the stand on vessel, no? (Less the very small percentage allowed for “it depends”).

 

[mvweebles]

What am I missing here? If I hit the starboard side of a vessel then I was the stand on vessel, no? (Less the very small percentage allowed for “it depends”).

Good catch. My mistake. You are absolutely correct! I was thinking sail with starboard tack.

Thanks for catching that. I hate when that happens.

Peter