When hearing the terms “maritime law” or “admiralty law,” one thinks about issues that might occur on the high seas. While such a characterization is correct, there is a substantial body of case law that demonstrates how an occurrence need not happen specifically on the open water; instead, maritime jurisdiction may be applicable when an occurrence on land relates to a maritime issue.
This is, however, legally unclear. If someone purchases a defective item that causes damage, e.g. an electrical item malfunctions and burns the consumer, there is no cause of action just because the item was shipped from China on board a large ship. Instead, the relationship must be stronger. This issue was confirmed by an Appellate Court in the case of Duluth Superior v. Makela from 1977.
Duluth Superior v. Makela
Joseph Makela was a resident of Minnesota and purchased tickets to a “Booze Cruise” that was operated by Duluth Superior. Duluth Superior hosted a cruise around Lake Superior that featured much drinking. After the cruise, Makela, like the other passengers, returned to his car to go home for the night. While he was driving home near the cruise ship, he was struck by another passenger. The other passenger died as a result while Makela was seriously hurt in the crash.
Makela sued Duluth Superior under a negligence claim, reasoning that Duluth Superior was negligent in supervising the passengers of the booze cruise, which, in turn, led to Makela’s injuries. Makela filed under a maritime claim in Federal District Court. Duluth Superior filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that Makela’s suit was not a well-pleaded complaint in Federal Court because there was no Federal jurisdiction over the case. It was, according to Duluth Superior, strictly a negligence claim not relevant to Federal Court.
The District Court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that it was not a maritime claim. The Appellate Court reversed, saying that it was related enough to maritime law for the case to go forward. Specifically, the Appellate Court stated that the drinking occurred on navigable waters. During the cruise, the agents aboard the ship did not stop the drinking despite awareness that it can lead to drunk driving. As such, the court ruled that the case can continue.
Aftermath
An injured plaintiff can bring a maritime case and request protection under various maritime laws, even if the injury did not occur on the high seas.
Hypothetical Case
Even assuming that a court would hold that Makela has a proper course of action, would the same apply if the plaintiff was not a passenger on the booze cruise? Do we say that Makela can bring a case under a maritime claim because he was a passenger on the booze cruise but not a third party? Or do we say that Makela falls under maritime law because the defendant provided alcohol, so it is not relevant who the plaintiff is?
Hurt in a maritime accident? Contact the Kolodny law firm, a maritime law firm.
Alan Kolodny is committed to representing injured clients in Texas and throughout the United States. Alan earned his B.A. from Rice University and his J.D. from Southern Methodist University.
He focuses his practice on representing plaintiffs in personal injury cases involving the following matters: maritime and offshore accidents, including those under the Jones Act; automobile and 18-wheeler truck accidents; and industrial site accidents, work-related accidents, and claims for injured railroad workers under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act.
Loading...