Understanding the Savings to Suitors Clause in Maritime Law
Maritime law typically falls under federal jurisdiction, meaning that cases involving maritime issues are generally adjudicated in federal court, applying federal law. However, an important exception exists: the savings to suitors clause, which allows certain cases to be heard in state courts.
What is the Savings to Suitors Clause?
The savings to suitors clause is codified in 28 USC § 1333, which states: “Any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled.” This provision essentially grants plaintiffs the option to pursue maritime claims in state court, even when these claims may have both federal and state elements.
Implications of the Savings to Suitors Clause
When a plaintiff files a maritime or admiralty suit in state court that includes both federal and state law claims stemming from the same incident, the case cannot be removed to federal court. This is significant for claimants who may prefer the procedural or strategic advantages of state court.
For example, a case involving an injury that occurred at sea could be classified as a common law tort in state court rather than strictly as an admiralty case. The savings to suitors clause permits this approach, ensuring that the plaintiff can maintain their case within the state judicial system.
The Concept of Reverse Erie
The cases that invoke the savings to suitors clause are often referred to as reverse Erie cases. The Erie Doctrine dictates that federal courts exercising diversity jurisdiction must apply state law when resolving state-law claims. In other words, if a plaintiff from Texas sues a defendant from Oklahoma in federal court for over $75,000, the federal court would apply Texas law to the case.
In contrast, when a state court hears a maritime case under the savings to suitors clause, it applies federal maritime law, even though the case may be framed as a common law tort. State courts can also apply state law, but only in circumstances where it does not conflict with established federal maritime and admiralty law. This unique interplay ensures that maritime law remains consistent across different jurisdictions while respecting the preferences of plaintiffs.
Conclusion
The savings to suitors clause plays a vital role in maritime law by providing plaintiffs with the flexibility to choose their forum. Understanding how this clause operates, particularly in relation to the reverse Erie doctrine, can significantly impact the strategy for pursuing maritime claims.
Contact Us 24/7 for a Free Consultation
If you have been injured in a maritime accident, it’s crucial to understand your rights and options. Contact Kolodny Law Firm for dedicated legal guidance tailored to your situation.
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...