Understanding Admiralty Law And The Courts That Hear Cases

The U.S. Constitution and the Judiciary Act of 1789 give federal courts jurisdiction over admiralty cases. This means that federal courts have the power to hear and decide cases related to admiralty or maritime law. However, in certain situations, state courts may also hear admiralty cases, especially when a case involves matters that are maritime but local. The “saving to suitors” clause in Section 9 of the Judiciary Act allows plaintiffs to pursue certain claims in state courts, even if the case falls under admiralty jurisdiction. This clause gives suitors the right to seek remedies available under common law or state law.

Explore related products

Admiralty and Maritime Law (Hornbooks)

$182 $182

Admiralty and Maritime Law in the United States: Cases and Materials

$96.63 $119

Admiralty and maritime law

$18.99

Admiralty in a Nutshell

$62 $62

2023 Statutory Supplement to Admiralty and Maritime Law, Fourth Edition

$26.5

Cases and Materials on Admiralty, 6th (University Casebook Series)

$296

Federal courts hear admiralty cases

The "saving to suitors" clause in Section 9 of the Judiciary Act, also known as the "suits" clause, complicates the matter. This clause allows plaintiffs the right to pursue certain claims in state courts, even if the case falls under admiralty jurisdiction. This includes concurrent jurisdiction for in personam maritime causes of action against the owner of a vessel. State courts can apply federal admiralty law or state law if it does not conflict with established admiralty law.

The Supreme Court has clarified that the grant of admiralty jurisdiction to federal courts aims for a uniform system of maritime law across the country, promoting navigation, commerce, and diplomatic relations. This uniformity addresses the diverse and unpredictable rules of state admiralty courts under the Articles of Confederation.

However, determining whether a state or federal court has jurisdiction over a maritime case can still be challenging. The applicability of state or federal law depends on the specific circumstances of each case. In some instances, state law may supplement federal maritime law, particularly in cases involving maritime torts within a state's territorial waters.

Explore related products

Admiralty and Maritime Law Volume 2, Second Edition

$125.95

Courts of Admiralty and the Common Law (Paperback): Origins of the American Experiment in Concurrent Jurisdiction

$53 $53

The Practice and Jurisdiction of the Court of Admiralty: An Historical Examination of the Civil Jurisdiction of the Court of Admiralty; A Translation of Clerke's Praxis, With Notes on the Jurisdict...

$24.57 $35.97

Admiralty and Maritime Law in the United States: Cases and Materials

$80

Statutory Supplement to Admiralty and Maritime Law in the United States, Fourth Edition

$20.5

The Practice And Jurisdiction Of The Court Of Admiralty: In Three Parts

$25

State courts can hear cases under the 'saving to suitors' clause

The U.S. Constitution and the Judiciary Act of 1789 give federal courts jurisdiction over admiralty cases. Codified as 28 U.S.C. §1333, the Judiciary Act states that:

> The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of… any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled.

The first part of section 1333 indicates that federal courts have jurisdiction over admiralty cases. However, the second part of section 1333 (known as the "saving to suitors" clause) complicates matters. The "saving to suitors" clause gives plaintiffs the right to pursue certain claims in state courts, even if the case falls under admiralty jurisdiction. This means that state courts can hear cases under the saving to suitors clause.

When a state court hears an admiralty case, it usually must apply federal admiralty law. However, if state law does not conflict with established admiralty law, state law may be applied to maritime cases. This ensures that plaintiffs have access to "all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled," as required by 28 U.S.C. §1333. For example, in Goett v. Union Carbide Corp., the Supreme Court held that in a wrongful death case, a state law may supply the standard for liability in a maritime tort that arises within the state's territorial jurisdiction.

In some cases, such as those involving maritime torts in a state's territorial waters, the Court has held that state law may supplement federal maritime law with additional remedies. For instance, in Yamaha Motor Corp. v. Calhoun, the Court held that state remedies for the wrongful death of a non-seafarer in state territorial waters were not preempted by federal law, as federal law provided no other remedy.

It is important to note that certain admiralty death and injury claims can only be filed in federal court, including in rem proceedings where the vessel itself is being sued. In these cases, plaintiffs must pursue actions in federal court when they seek remedies that lie against property in rem, such as the seizure of a vessel to enforce a maritime lien.

Explore related products

Cases and Materials on Admiralty (American Casebook Series)

$299.97

The Price of Admiralty: The Evolution of Naval Warfare

$17.3 $21.95

The Irish Admiralty: A Story of Irish Naval Heroes

$32 $32

Admiralty (The Collected Short Works of Poul Anderson)

$29

The Practice and Jurisdiction of the Court of Admiralty

$28.57

Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over in rem proceedings

Admiralty law, also known as maritime law, refers to the body of law governing maritime questions and offences. The jurisdiction of admiralty law is shared by both federal and state courts. However, federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over certain admiralty matters, such as in rem proceedings.

In rem jurisdiction refers to the power a court may exercise over property (either real or personal) or a "status" against a person over whom the court does not have in personam jurisdiction. In the context of admiralty law, in rem jurisdiction typically involves the power a federal court may exercise over large items of immovable property, such as a vessel, located within the court's jurisdiction. The most common scenario in which this occurs is when a suit is brought against a vessel to satisfy debts arising from its operation or use.

In rem proceedings in admiralty law often involve the seizure of a vessel to enforce a maritime lien. For instance, in the case of a maritime injury or death, certain admiralty death and injury claims can only be filed in federal court, including in rem proceedings where the vessel itself is being sued. This is because the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over civil cases of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, as outlined in 28 U.S.C. §1333.

However, the "saving to suitors" clause in Section 9 of the Judiciary Act complicates the matter. This clause gives plaintiffs the right to pursue certain claims in state court, even if the case falls under admiralty jurisdiction. This concurrent jurisdiction allows plaintiffs to bring personal actions against individual defendants seeking common law remedies, such as payment of monetary damages. Nevertheless, federal courts retain their exclusive jurisdiction over in rem proceedings, where the primary object of the action is the property itself rather than personal liabilities associated with the property.

State law may be applied if it doesn't conflict with admiralty law

The US Constitution and the Judiciary Act of 1789 give federal courts jurisdiction over admiralty cases. Article III of the Constitution extends federal judicial power to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. However, the "saving to suitors" clause in Section 9 of the Judiciary Act, also known as the "Savings to Suitors Clause", complicates matters. This clause gives plaintiffs the right to pursue certain claims in state courts, even if the case falls under admiralty jurisdiction.

When a state court hears an admiralty case, it must apply federal admiralty law. However, if state law does not conflict with established admiralty law, state law may be applied to maritime cases. This ensures that plaintiffs have access to "all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled", as required by 28 U.S.C. §1333. For example, in Western Fuel Co. v. Garcia (1921), the Supreme Court held that applying a state wrongful death statute to a death in navigable waters would not interfere with the harmony and uniformity of admiralty law.

State laws can be applied when there is no settled admiralty rule on an issue. For instance, in Wilburn Boat Co. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. (1955), the Supreme Court held that state law governed the effect of marine insurance warranties when Congress had left the regulation of marine insurance to the states. In some cases, state law can supplement federal admiralty law when there is a provision for additional maritime tort remedy. State contract law, however, has no intersection with federal maritime law.

State courts may have jurisdiction over admiralty matters that deal with actions in personam unless the case falls under the exclusive maritime jurisdiction of federal courts. Additionally, state courts may have jurisdiction when the matter is primarily local.

Admiralty jurisdiction promotes uniformity in maritime law

Admiralty law, also known as maritime law, governs nautical issues and private maritime disputes. It 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 has its own legislation governing maritime matters, the international nature of the topic and the need for uniformity have led to the development of international maritime law. This includes numerous multilateral treaties, such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which has been adopted by 167 countries.

In the United States, the Constitution and the Judiciary Act of 1789 give federal courts jurisdiction over admiralty cases. Article III of the Constitution extends federal judicial power to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. The Supreme Court interprets this clause as granting Congress the authority to enact maritime laws while reserving for the Court the exclusive right to determine jurisdiction in maritime matters. This ensures the uniformity necessary for a stable maritime economy. The Framers of the Constitution recognised that uniform federal admiralty jurisdiction could protect maritime commerce from the diverse and unpredictable rules of state admiralty courts.

The determination of admiralty jurisdiction often hinges on whether the matter has a "maritime flavour," which is assessed based on the potential impacts on the shipping industry and national interests. For example, in contract matters, admiralty jurisdiction depends on the nature of the transaction. In cases involving maritime torts in a state's territorial waters, the Court has held that state law may supplement federal maritime law with additional remedies. However, state laws cannot "work material prejudice to the characteristic features of the general maritime law, or interfere with the proper harmony and uniformity of that law."

In federal courts in the United States, there is generally no right to a jury trial in admiralty cases, except when granted by statutes such as the 1920 Jones Act, which grants a jury trial to seamen suing their employers. A state court hearing an admiralty case is required to apply admiralty and maritime law, even if it conflicts with state law, under a doctrine known as the "reverse-Erie doctrine". This helps to promote uniformity in maritime law across different states.

Frequently asked questions