Section 11.11 Admiralty Jurisdiction Over Torts

• Library: Tort Law 2016

H. (§11.11) Admiralty Jurisdiction Over Torts

While In re Three Buoys Houseboat Vacations U.S.A. Ltd. v. Morts, 921 F.2d 775 (8^th Cir. 1990), Livingston v. United States, 627 F.2d 165 (8^th Cir. 1980), Cooper v. United States, 489 F. Supp. 200 (W.D. Mo. 1980), rev’d on rehearing, 500 F. Supp. 191 (W.D. Mo. 1980), and Edwards v. Hurtel, 717 F.2d 1204 (8^th Cir. 1983), appear to have eliminated many Missouri streams and artificial impoundments from federal admiralty jurisdiction, for those waters that are deemed navigable, both in Missouri and elsewhere, there exist further requirements for invoking admiralty jurisdiction in tort cases.

Traditionally, a maritime tort was one that occurred on navigable waters. The Plymouth, 70 U.S. (3 Wall.) 20 (1865). All that was required to establish admiralty jurisdiction was to establish the situs of the wrong on navigable waters. In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, Ohio, 409 U.S. 249 (1972). The case arose out of the crash of a jet airplane into Lake Erie shortly after takeoff. Admiralty jurisdiction was asserted on the basis that the tort occurred on navigable waters. The U.S. Supreme Court, overruling The Plymouth, disagreed and held that, to evoke admiralty jurisdiction, more than the situs of the tort in navigable waters was required. The Court announced a new test, which has subsequently become known as the "locality plus" test. Not only must the tort occur on navigable waters, but the tort must also "bear a significant relationship to traditional maritime activity." Executive Jet, 409 U.S. at 268. The Court found no such relationship in a land-based aircraft flying from one point in the continental United States to another.

Following Executive Jet, 409 U.S. 249, aircraft flights primarily over land resulting in crashes over navigable waters have been held to lack the requisite nexus to traditional maritime activities. See, e.g., Miller v. Cousins Props., Inc., 378 F. Supp. 711 (D. Vt. 1974). But domestic flights between islands, domestic flights between the mainland and islands, and international flights have been held to have the requisite nexus on the basis that the aircraft were engaged in activity traditionally carried out by surface ships. See, e.g., Williamson v. Petroleum Helicopters, Inc., 32 F. Supp. 2d 456 (S.D. Tex. 1999); Hammill v. Olympic Airways, S.A., 398 F. Supp. 829 (D.D.C. 1975). Amphibious aircraft while taking off and landing have been held to have the requisite nexus. Hark v. Antilles Airboats, Inc., 355 F. Supp. 683 (D.V.I. 1973). In general, see Robert A. Brazener, Annotation, What Constitutes Significant Relationship to Traditional Maritime Activity to Support...