ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION: EXECUTIVE JET THROUGH FOREMOST INSURANCE CO. v. RICHARDSON by James A. George
I. INTRODUCTION Within the last ten years, the United States Supreme Court has decided two very significant cases defining the scope of maritime tort jurisdiction. ' This paper will address developments in the field of maritime tort jurisdiction since the Court's 1972 decision in Executive Jet Aviation v. City of Cleveland' and consider the potential ramifications of the Court's most recent pronouncement on maritime tort jurisdiction, Foremost Insurance Company v. Richardson,' as well as the impact of several significant recent decisions of the United States Court of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit.' For many years before the decision in Executive Jet, the requirements for admiralty jurisdiction were the subject of extensive litigation. In 1914, the United States Supreme Court encountered, but did not decide, the issue of whether the location of a tort was the sole test for admiralty jurisdiction.' Some lower courts which reached the issue in subsequent years, adopted a jurisdictional test in which locality was not the dispositive factor.' In Peytavin v. Government EmEditor's Note: The original version of this article appeared in the Louisiana Bar Journal, Vol. 3D, NO.4. Permission was obtained to reprint the article. Mr. George has updated the article to bring same current. He is a member of George and George, Ltd., a Professional Corporation in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Mr. George is a member of the Maritime Law Association of the United States and the Southeastern Admiralty Law Institute. Mr. George has been a regular contributor of fine articles on maritime law for The Arkansas Lawyer. 4/Arkansas Lawyer/January 1984
ployees Insurance Company,' the plaintiff was parked on a floating pontoon at a ferry landing when his car was struck from the rear by another car. The District Court dismissed the complaint, holding that the tort did not occur on navigable waters. The District Court concluded that the pontoon, connected to the shore by two cables, was an extension of land. The Fifth Circuit found that the accident did occur on navigable water, but held that such a finding was not dispositive of the jurisdictional issue. Application of a pure "locality" test for determining jurisdiction was criticized by the Court, as such a test was said to be only as precise as a court's ability to determine the location of the tort.' The Court also criticized the approach taken by other courts employing a "locality plus" test and concluded the "locality plus" lest combined the uncertainty inherent in determining the locality of the tort with the problem of determining what constituted a sufficient relationship to maritime activity.' As an alternative to these approaches, the Court adopted the rule that a tort was within federal maritime jurisdiction if there existed a "substantial connection with maritime activity or interest"" and, finding no such connection, denied admiralty jurisdiction. However, not all lower courts were willing to abandon the "locality" test. Despite the grOWing move to eliminate the strict "locality" rule, Weinstein v. Eastern Airlines" held that the crash of a land-based airplane into navigable waters on an intracontinental flight was within federal maritime jurisdiction, on the basis that the situs of the tort was over navigable waters. The Court also found the facts analogous to cases where suits were maintained under the Death on the High Seas Act" when airplanes crashed beyond a marine
league from any state. U Until Executive Jet, most courts followed Weinstein and held that suits arising from airplane crashes into navigable waters were within the court's admiralty jurisdiction." II. EXECUTIVE JET AND ITS PROGENY In Executive Jet, a small jet aircraft struck a flock of seagulls a short distance from the airport. As a result, the plane lost power and crashed into Lake Erie. Plaintiffs alleged that the city was negligent in not keeping the runway free from birds and in not warning the plaintiffs about their presence. They argued that the action could be brought in admiralty because the plane crashed in navigable waters. The District Court, in an unpublished opinion, dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction. It applied a "locality plus" test and concluded that the first prong of the test, the location of the tort in navigable waters, was not satisfied. The Court stated that the alleged negligence became operable upon the jet while it was over land; where the jet happened to fall was merely fortuitous. Alternatively, the District Court concluded that the wrong bore no relationship to maritime service, navigation or commerce. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal, concluding that "the alleged tort in this case occurred on land before the aircraft reached Lake Erie."" Accordingly, the Court did not find it necessary to consider the second prong of the "locality plus" test." The Supreme Court granted certiorari" to "consider a seemingly important question affecting the jurisdiction of the federal courts"." Initially, the Supreme Court pointed out that "admiralty jurisdiction of the federal courts has traditionally depended