Admiralty Tort Jurisdiction--Tort Claims Not Within Admiralty Jurisdiction Unless Requisite Maritime Nexus Exists

Authors

First Page

343

Abstract

Article Ill of the Constitution' grants exclusive jurisdiction in admiralty to the federal courts. The scope of this jurisdiction over tort claims traditionally has depended upon the situs of the tort whether it occurred on land or on navigable water. Although most American courts have adhered to this strict locality test, it has received frequent criticism as manifested by significant judicial and legislative modifications over the years. Most judicial challenges to the test have focused on its failure to require a connection between the tortious occurrence and the traditional problems of maritime commerce.' A majority of courts ostensibly continued to apply the locality standard until 1972 when the United States Supreme Court for the first time explicitly addressed the issue of whether maritime tort jurisdiction turned solely on maritime locality in Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland and held that the wrong must bear a significant relationship to traditional maritime activity' for the federal courts to have admiralty jurisdiction. Subsequently, in Kelly v. Smith, the Fifth Circuit implemented the new test articulated by the Supreme Court by analyzing all the circumstances relating to an alleged tort in terms of four relevant factors to determine whether a substantial maritime relationship existed. Although the court indicated that it had applied the Executive Jet test in finding admiralty jurisdiction, its factor analysis nevertheless seems to have placed undue emphasis on the locality of the tort.

Recommended Citation

Admiralty Tort Jurisdiction--Tort Claims Not Within Admiralty Jurisdiction Unless Requisite Maritime Nexus Exists, 27 Vanderbilt Law Review 343 (1974)
Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol27/iss2/9