Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly

Edited by Professor Francis D Rose

Document

ADMIRALTY TORT JURISDICTION IN THE UNITED STATES: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS

Michael F Sturley *

In the United States, admiralty jurisdiction is central not only to a federal court’s power to decide a maritime case but also to the choice of governing law (even in state court). The jurisdictional rules for tort cases have evolved significantly. During the nineteenth century, the Supreme Court expanded the scope of admiralty tort jurisdiction by rejecting restrictive doctrines inherited from English law. Congress further expanded the scope in the mid-twentieth century. Over the last 54 years, however, the Supreme Court has introduced new restrictions while providing very little explicit guidance. Lower courts have applied the new rules inconsistently, often more harshly than the Supreme Court apparently intended. Many of the problems with the current system could be avoided if the lower courts paid more attention to the limited guidance that the Supreme Court has provided.

I. INTRODUCTION

The scope of the federal courts’ admiralty jurisdiction over maritime torts in the United States has a long and complex history, and it has become increasingly complicated over the last 54 years. Like so many other aspects of US law, the story’s origins begin in medieval England. And, like so many other aspects of US law, over the past two and a half centuries the rules have significantly diverged from those of the mother country. Although some of the most basic principles can be traced back over 600 years, the details of today’s picture look very different. Moreover, some of those details remain in a state of flux, because the US Supreme Court has failed to provide adequate guidance and the lower courts have been inconsistent in adhering to what guidance has been provided.

The subject is important for multiple reasons. Most obviously, the rules of admiralty tort jurisdiction determine when a federal court sitting in admiralty has the power to

* Fannie Coplin Regents Chair in Law, University of Texas at Austin. Much of the research for this article was completed while I was the Robert S Campbell Visiting Fellow at Magdalen College, Oxford, and I am grateful for all of the support that I received during that fellowship. I was involved in some of the more recent cases that are discussed in this article, but I write here solely in my academic capacity and the views I express are my own. They do not necessarily represent the views of, and they have not been endorsed or approved by, any of my former clients or co-counsel.

The following abbreviations are used:

AEA: Admiralty Extension Act (1948);

FRCP: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

Gilmore & Black, 1st edn: Grant Gilmore & Charles L Black Jr, The Law of Admiralty, 1st edn (1957);

Gilmore & Black, 2nd edn: Grant Gilmore & Charles L Black Jr, The Law of Admiralty, 2nd edn (1975);

PDMC: potential to disrupt maritime commerce;

SRTMA: substantial-relationship-to-traditional-maritime-activity.

Admiralty Tort Jurisdiction In The Usa

203

The rest of this document is only available to i-law.com online subscribers.

If you are already a subscriber, click Log In button.