Article by Warren J. Marwedel
Finding its beginnings in antiquity, admiralty law is over twice the age of the common law. In colonial times, admiralty matters came under the jurisdiction of the Vice Admiral of the Royal Navy. His powers derived from the admiralty court system in England. When the Constitution was signed, the Admiralty Court succeeded to the powers of the Vice Admiralty and began to develop its own system. During the first hundred years of our nation, the lower federal courts were largely devoted to handling cases over which they had jurisdiction by reason of admiralty law or diversity of citizenship. Only in 1875 did Congress grant the lower federal courts federal question jurisdiction.
Under the Judiciary Act of 1789, district courts were given “exclusive original cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.” This grant of jurisdiction included the seizure of vessels and cargos for violations of the customs and navigation laws. The majority of cases handled by the district courts during the first fifty years of their existence were admiralty cases, most of which were suits for seamen's wages. The remaining admiralty cases during the period might have involved prizes, collisions, salvage, repairs, charter parties, or bottomry bonds (an ancient form of ship mortgage), or they included a large number of actions by seamen for assault and battery committed by masters and mates. The last group of cases was the only type of maritime personal injury case recognized at that time.
Until a criminal case was reported in 1863, every prior Maryland district court opinion published in the federal reporters had involved the exercise of admiralty jurisdiction. Congress in 1842, however, greatly expanded the criminal jurisdiction of the district courts. Thereafter, the district courts ceased to be predominantly admiralty courts and became courts of general civil and criminal jurisdiction. Over the past century and a half, nonadmiralty cases have gained control of the federal docket.
When the framers of the U.S. Constitution and Congress discussed admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, it can be fairly assumed that neither group had recreational boats in mind. Similarly, when Congress first considered whether to allow a shipowner to limit his liability, it probably did not consider the effect any legislation would have on recreational boating. However, pleasure boating has become an activity of ever increasing popularity in the United States. This phenomenon has created a host of complex legal questions that many courts have addressed in the past few years with markedly different results. Many traditional and heretofore settled doctrines of admiralty law are being reexamined in the recreational boating context.
About the Author
Warren J. Marwedel. Partner, Keck, Mahin & Cate, Chicago, Illinois; Member, Illinois State Bar Association.
Citation
68 Tul. L. Rev. 423 (1994)