Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
US MARITIME LAW
Martin Davies *
CASES
292. Bommarito v Belle Chasse Marine Transportation LLC 1
Admiralty jurisdiction—tort claim—Admiralty Extension Act—proximate cause
A rigger was severely injured on the job while constructing a launch site on the Mississippi River. He was struck by a hook attached to a crane on a barge that was on the river by the launch site. He suffered an orbital fracture to his eye and a displaced cervical disk, both of which injuries required surgery. After an initial surgery on his back, he was told that he would need two further surgeries to alleviate the pain he was suffering. While waiting for that further surgery, he was prescribed oxycodone, fentanyl and tramadol to alleviate his pain. After the initial prescriptions ran out, the rigger was still experiencing an unacceptable level of pain. His mother tried to get an appointment with a doctor to renew the prescriptions, without success. A day later, she returned home to find him unconscious. He had taken an overdose of fentanyl, which he had purchased on the street, mixed with xylazine, a horse tranquiliser. He died; the autopsy revealed that his blood contained more than six times what is considered to be a lethal dose of fentanyl.
The rigger’s estate sued the operator of the barge under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (“LHWCA”), a federal statute that permits a longshore worker to sue his or her employer for negligence of a vessel operated by the employer.2 The district court held the defendant liable for vessel negligence under LHWCA and awarded damages to the rigger’s mother and children. The defendant appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit arguing, among other things, that the district court improperly applied federal maritime law because the plaintiff’s claim was not within the court’s admiralty jurisdiction.
Decision: Appeal allowed.
Held: (1) The Admiralty Extension Act (“AEA”)3 extends the admiralty jurisdiction of US courts to cases of injury or damage caused by a vessel on navigable waters, even though the injury is done or consummated on land. Cases in the admiralty jurisdiction are governed by federal maritime law.
(2) The hook that injured the deceased rigger was an appurtenance of the crane barge, with the result that negligence in its design and handling constituted vessel negligence on navigable waters.
* DCL (Oxon); Niels F. Johnsen Chair in Maritime Law and Director, Maritime Law Center, Tulane University Law School, New Orleans.
1. (2025) 159 F 4th 297 (5th Cir).
2. 33 USC s.905(b)–(c).
3. 46 USC s.30101(a).
US Maritime Law
209