Under the Admiralty Rule, if the plaintiff is 90% at fault, plaintiff can still collect (assuming liability) 10% of his/her damages. By contrast, in admiralty, the rule of pure comparative negligence will be applied. In Massachusetts, there is a modified comparative negligence rule thus, if the plaintiff is 51% or more at fault, s/he is out of court. For example, look at the rule of comparative negligence.
The substantive law to be applied, however, will normally be the general maritime law, or federal common law, as opposed to state law. the Massachusetts Superior Court) the case will, in fact, be tried before a jury under the procedural rules of the state court. If a case that is maritime in nature is brought in a state court of general jurisdiction (i.e.
Admiralty jurisdiction invisible contracts trial#
federal question or diversity jurisdiction are not available, counsel can select a state forum and thus preserve trial before a jury. If a case may only be brought in federal court based on admiralty jurisdiction, i.e. The common reason for so doing centers upon a plaintiff’s desire for trial by jury. Under the Savings to Suitors Clause, (1) a maritime case may be brought in a state court 2. Generally, to the extent that the general maritime law provides substantive rules of decision, the general maritime law will be applied to the exclusion of state law or federal statutes. This will be discussed in more detail infra. Further, there are many situations in which a case that is admiralty in nature may be brought in a state court.Ī second reason to determine whether a case sounds in admiralty or is otherwise subject to admiralty jurisdiction is to differentiate the substantive law to be applied 1. The net effect of a jurisdictional allegation for a basis other than solely court’s admiralty jurisdiction is that the case may be tried before a jury. There are a myriad of situations where a claim, albeit admiralty in nature, may be brought under the court’s federal question (28 U.S.C. This does not mean that a case which “sounds in admiralty” may only be brought under the court’s admiralty jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. This tradition has existed since well before the Constitution was drafted. A unique feature of admiralty jurisdiction, however, is that cases brought before the District Court based only upon admiralty jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. Bear in mind that an admiralty case is one of the three types of cases that federal courts may hear, with the other two obviously being: federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. If a case “sounds in admiralty,” then admiralty subject matter jurisdiction of the United States District Courts will exist over the case at hand. to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. The Constitution of the United States states in pertinent part, that “the judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity. If a particular matter is subject to admiralty jurisdiction, it means two things: (1) admiralty subject matter jurisdiction exists in the federal courts, and (2) there is a distinct difference in the substantive law and, perhaps, the rules of procedure that will be applied to a particular case. When speaking of admiralty jurisdiction, the attorney must bear in mind that the term “jurisdiction” is multi-dimensional. At the back of this booklet, the reader will find a bibliography of admiralty and maritime law source material which s/he can refer to for a more detailed discussion of any particular issue. Rather, the intent is to provide a broad overview of admiralty and maritime law, with a particular emphasis on the type of issues most likely to be presented to the general practitioner. This seminar, as well as the handout material, is not designed to make the reader an expert in admiralty and maritime law.