Continuing Conflict between United States and English Admiralty Law on Limitation of Liability: Whose Privity Binds the Corporate Shipowner

Part I of this Note examines the difference in respective emphasis placed by United States and English admiralty law upon responsibility of a corporate employee and the employee’s position in the corporate hierarchy in determining the employer’s right to limit liability. Part II analyzes the extent to which shipowners in England and the United States are allowed to delegate their responsibilities in ensuring the seaworthiness of their vessels. Part III of this Note argues that under English admiralty law, limitation of liability is granted where none is warranted. This Note concludes by recommending the United States standard for finding privity

Assessment of Role of Admiralty Courts in India in Protecting Abandoned Seafarers Onboard Vessels in Indian Ports

The present study will discuss the role of admiralty courts in India in protecting abandoned seafarers. Judgments and orders of Admiralty courts are analyzed to decipher the approach adopted by Indian admiralty courts for protecting abandoned seafarers in Indian Ports. Furthermore, it is seen how much time Admiralty Courts in India usually take to judicially auction the vessel in cases where the vessel under arrest has an abandoned crew onboard. Several suggestions are made on how Admiralty courts in India can better protect abandoned seafarers by using the existing legal regime. The study is doctrinal. A significant data source for the study comprises Judgments and orders from Indian Admiralty courts involving abandoned seafarers. In particular, five specific instances where seafarer abandonment was reported on the vessel are assessed, and all of these cases were litigated in the Indian Admiralty court. From work, it can be seen that Admiralty courts in India have played a crucial role in protecting the abandoned seafarers in Indian Ports. Courts have come out as a guardian of seafarers, and it was only due to the intervention of the courts that the seafarers, in numerous cases, were able to recover pending wages, repatriation expenses, and necessities onboard the vessel. Furthermore, it is found from the analysis of case laws that the time the court takes for judicially auctioning the vessel is much longer than the maximum period specified in the Admiralty Act, 2017. From the study, it can be concluded that although Admiralty courts in India have played an important role in protecting abandoned seafarers in Indian ports, still, there is a need for some changes, which include speedy disposal of admiralty litigations in India

Federal Jurisdiction over State Claims to Shipwrecks: Should the Eleventh Amendment Go Down with the Ship?

The Eleventh Amendment prohibits citizens from bringing actions in law or equity against individual states in federal courts. The Amendment does not address whether states are subject to federal jurisdiction for actions in admiralty in which both a shipwreck salvor and a state claim title to a shipwreck Analyzing applicable admiralty, federal, and common law in the context of Eleventh Amendment jurisprudence, this Note examines whether the states are subject to pure admiralty actions in federal court by citizen-salvors seeking either title to or reward for salvaging a shipwreck. The original intentions of admiralty law: rewarding salvors for their efforts, uniformity, and encouraging the recovery and preservation of shipwrecked property, are considered in answering this jurisdictional question. The Eleventh Amendment remains afloat to protect states from some admiralty actions, but there are circumstances in which federal courts should have jurisdiction over citizens and states competing for claim to shipwrecks

Lost at Sea: The Continuing Decline of The Supreme Court in Admiralty

For the first 200 years of its history, the United States Supreme Court served as the primary leader in the development of, and its cases the primary source of, the admiralty and maritime law of the United States. That appears to be changing. The Court’s admiralty cases over the last quarter century indicate that it is slowly giving up its traditional leading role in creating and developing rules of admiralty law, and instead deferring to Congress to make those rules, a trend that is tantamount to abandoning its Article III constitutional duty to serve as the country’s only national admiralty court. Some scholars believe that this trend is just as it should be. It has been recently argued that the Court’s two centuries of federal common lawmaking in admiralty is, and always has been, unconstitutional, and ought to be curtailed with few exceptions. Federal admiralty law should therefore be “normalized” and brought into conformity with the same principles of federalism and separation of powers which govern most other areas of federal law. This Article examines the Court’s most recent admiralty case, Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida, and argues that it represents a striking escalation in the Court “normalizing” federal admiralty law. The many objectionable features of Lozman, however, form the basis of a pragmatic argument against the Court adopting a normalization approach. In largely ignoring hundreds of years of its own cases, the Court’s reasoning was arbitrary, unpredictable, and provides virtually no guidance to the state and lower federal courts. Properly understood, the troubling aspects of the case justify a return to the Court’s traditional, constitutionally prescribed role of making rules of decision in admiralty in the manner of a common law court

Admiralty: Rights of Contribution and Exoneration Established Between Coextensive Maintenance and Cure Obligors

Emphasizing the extent of equity discretion available to admiralty courts, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that maintenance and cure expenses resulting from a seaman\u27s recurring injury should be borne equally by the obligor liable for the original injury and the owner in whose employ the injury was heightened. However, where the injury has resulted from the violation of a duty owed the seaman by either obligor, the total liability is the responsibility of the offending party. Although determining the extent of contribution in an inequitable albeit facile manner, the decision bars arbitrary imposition of liability and significantly indicates judicial disfavor of the traditional impediments to loss distribution in maritime law