MARITIME LAW
In this section you will find information
pertaining to the field of Maritime Law. You will also find
other information on some of the cases The Panagiotis
Firm has tried on their merits and succeeded in defending against
the plaintiffs.
Links to Maritime
law resources:
International
Maritime Organization. The United Nations' specialized agency
responsible for improving maritime safety and preventing pollution
from ships.
U.S.
Coast Guard. Y2K Risk assessment and Mitigation
The
Journal Of Maritime Law & Commerce. Includes cases and
information from U.S. District courts as well as state courts
pertaining to maritime law.
The
new roles of a maritime attorney; using computer imaging
to plead a case.
Global
Maritime Law. The Amoco Cadiz oil spill disaster.
The Law Of Admiralty
The law of admiralty is a complex
area of law which goes back to antiquity. It is a classic discipline
and, it is said, the only true body of international law, a
lingua franca through which people of different nations
can come together to deal with the promise, profits and perils
of voyages at sea. It also includes, however, some recent developments
borne out of the economic and environmental challenges of the
late twentieth century. In addition to traditional commercial
topics, admiralty can be said to include the laws which regulate
the ever increasing recreational boating activities such as
cruising, fishing and racing. Once an elitist sport and lifestyle,
yachting has become so widespread as to require government regulation
in all its forms. This article is not meant to provide a comprehensive
description of maritime law or specific legal advise on any
given topic. Rather, it is a general overview of the subject
which attempts to address both traditional commercial areas,
such as carriage of goods, general average and maritime liens,
as well as topics of interest to the yachtsman and recreational
boater. We will have reached our goal if this brief discussion
can trigger a spark of interest and introduce the reader to
this intriguing and fascinating discipline.
Seamen's Personal Injuries
Congress has not adopted a workers
compensation statute applicable to seamen like the one that
exists for land-based workers. To compensate seamen and their
families for a seaman's personal injuries or death, the Courts
and Congress have developed a patchwork of remedies available
to seamen who become sick or injured during their employment
aboard vessels. Seamen can also obtain the protection of maritime
law for illnesses developed after their employment for exposure
to asbestos or hazardous chemicals.
A seaman is entitled to damages
for the unseaworthiness of a vessel, maintenance and cure, and
Jones Act damages. These remedies are only applicable to seamen
and do not apply to land-based workers. Most attorneys are not
experienced with these laws designed to protect seamen, in the
event of negligence. The Panagiotis Firm. is
fully qualified to help our clients in defending their rights
against fraudulent claims, drug or alcohol usage at the time
of the accident, and other areas of defense.
The Meaning of Admiralty
Jurisdiction
Many of the peculiarities of admiralty
actions have been removed by legislation and court decisions.
What remains is not simply the legacy of a long history and
tradition but a function of the specific needs of maritime commerce.
Aside from the actual form of the proceedings, actions in admiralty
were, and still are, of two types: in personam and
in rem. The in personam suit that is against
a person or a judicial entity is typical of any other jurisdiction
or branch of law. This would include direction action against
insurance companies. The in rem proceeding, on the
other hand, is virtually unknown outside of admiralty. The basis
of the in rem proceeding is the maritime lien.
Upon the occurrence of certain events or the non-fulfillment
of obligations arising out of a contract or condition, maritime
law gives the aggrieved party a right defined as a property
interest in the vessel or other tangible thing involved in the
amount of the accrued liability. The difference between the
maritime lien and other types of liens is that it is generally
independent of possession and is not extinguished by transfer
to a bona fide purchaser without notice of its existence. Although
a personal maritime liability may exist without a lien, the
lien itself may vest even though the owner of the burdened vessel
is not himself liable.
The way to enforce a maritime lien
is the above mentioned procedure in rem which is an
action directly against the vessel burdened by the lien. The
vessel against which the lien is asserted is taken into the
custody of the court. The owner of the vessel, who conducts
the defense, will normally post a bond, thus securing the release
of the vessel. If the lien is established on the merits, the
vessel is sold at auction through an officer of the court, with
the proceeds going to the lienor up to an amount sufficient
to satisfy the lien. It is important to note that, while a suit
in personam can be brought either in the federal courts
(where jurisdiction is present due to diversity of citizenship)
or at common law in state courts, a proceeding in rem
can only be brought in the federal court as a court of admiralty.
DETERMINING ADMIRALTY
JURISDICTION
A) Locality
For a matter to be maritime, the waters where it takes place
must be of a certain type. High seas and harbors communicating
with them are included but other bodies of water may or may
not be. In general, the admiralty jurisdiction of the United
States extends to all waters, with or without tides, salt or
fresh, natural or artificial, which are navigable in interstate
or foreign water commerce, without regard as to whether the
particular body of water is entirely within a state, and whether
or not the transaction in question is confined to a single state.
It follows that small bodies of water wholly within a state
and not navigable in interstate and foreign commerce do not
provide admiralty jurisdiction. The Great Lakes and the Mississippi,
on the other hand, are clearly within admiralty jurisdiction
as is the Erie Canal, which is wholly within a state but navigable
in interstate commerce. The Code of Federal Regulations
also lists waterways where federal jurisdiction applies.
B) Vessel Status
Generally, a vessel is defined
by the federal statutes as a watercraft or other contrivance
capable of being used as a means of transportation over water.
Courts have differed, however, in the interpretation of what
constitutes a vessel. While a cargo ship is clearly a vessel,
floating docks and platforms, barges and other equipment used
to repair bridges, docks and piers present more of a jurisdictional
problem. In order to determine whether or not a given item is
a vessel, several factors are considered, particularly the function
and purpose for which it was built. A court may ask whether
the object can be defined by law as a vessel, whether it can
move across the water, whether it is subject to the perils of
the sea or whether it is designed to be permanently fixed in
position.
C) Activity or type of lawsuit
The empowerment of the courts of the United States to draw upon
and administer maritime law derives from the language of the
Constitution which extends the judicial power of the United
States to "all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction".
Section 9 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 provides that:
"............the district
courts.......shall also have exclusive original cognizance of
all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.........saving
to suitors, in all cases, the right to a common law remedy,
where the common law is competent to give it:......"
The jurisdictional question, however,
has become a little more complicated than Congress originally
intended it to be. As of 1966, in order to invoke the constitutional
admiralty jurisdiction, a "complaint" must be filed
which is formally indistinguishable from the ordinary civil
complaint. When admiralty jurisdiction is invoked, however,
the consolidated rules still make provision for differential
treatment and handling of certain matters previously existing
only in admiralty.
An accurate list of the type of
activities which fall within the admiralty jurisdiction is impossible
to make but the following cases would most likely be deemed
in admiralty:
Suits for contracts for the carriage
of goods and passengers; for repairs and supplies furnished
to vessels as well as services such as towage, pilotage and
wharfage; for the chartering of ships; for the services of seamen;
for recovery of indemnity or premiums on marine or yacht insurance
policies; Suits in tort for collision damage, or for any physical
damage to ships or cargoes on navigable waters; for any damage
caused by a vessel; for personal injuries to seamen and passengers
while aboard a vessel on navigable waters. (The statutes dealing
with personal injury are the Merchant Marine Act of
1920, § 33, 41 Stat 1007, 46 U.S.C.A., popularly known as the
Jones Act and the Death on the High Seas Act,
1920, 41 Stat 537, 46 U.S.C.A.); Suits for wrongful death. When
these occur outside territorial waters, the federal Death
on the High Seas Act applies but within Territorial Waters.
The Jones Act with that general maritime law applies. Under
the Jones Act a seaman may sue either at law or in
admiralty and he usually chooses to sue at law in order to have
a jury; Suits for general average, salvage and maintenance and
cure; Petitions for limitation of ship owners' liability; Proceedings
to foreclose preferred ship-mortgages; Suits to recover vessels
wrongfully taken or withheld.
The following categories of actions
usually do not fall within the admiralty jurisdiction:
navigation; suit for the sale and
building of vessels; for the payment of a fee for procuring
a charter; for services to a vessel out of navigation. Suit
on breach of an agreement to procure insurance on a cargo.
Cases
Carlos Ortis vs. Delmar Offshore
Services, Inc.
Seaman's unseaworthiness claim.
low back injury with surgery
United States District Court- Lafayette.
Demand: $500,000.00
Judgment: Plaintiff take
nothing.
Chester Roberts vs. Omega Service
industries, Inc.
Third party liability claim under general maritime law.
Low back injury
32nd Judicial District Court, Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana
Judgment: Plaintiff take nothing.
Kevin
Guilbeaux vs. Wilrig (U.S.A) Inc., et al
Jones Act personal injury claim
Foot injury with surgery
United States District Court- Lafayette
Demand: $550,000.00
Judgment: $34,186.00 Judge awarded
$227,000.00 with 85% contributory
negligence
assessed on plaintiff.
Clarence
Sutton vs. Murphy Exploration & Producing Company
Jones Act personal injury claim.
Low back injury with surgery
United States District Court- Lafayette
Judgment: Summary judgment rendered
against plaintiff on seaman status
For more information about Maritime Law
please e-mail us at:
info@panalaw.com
