Comment by John Munch
The federal maritime law of the United States has evolved over the centuries into a complex and somewhat confused body of law. This present state of confusion results from the fact that maritime law is largely judge-made law, bolstered by relatively few federal statutes. This Comment attempts to demonstrate the confused state of one area of admiralty law by tracing the evolution of the dead ship doctrine into the “in navigation” requirement used by courts today. This Comment tracks the dead ship doctrine from its historic use in limited contract settings in the late eighteenth and nineteenth century through its present incarnation as the “in navigation” requirement touching most areas of modern maritime law. This Comment suggests that the adoption of the “in navigation” rule into new and ever expanding areas of maritime law has created uncertainty as to the present meaning and proper use of the “in navigation” rule. Courts, driven by different policies and personalities, have not agreed on how to define “in navigation” and have not consistently applied the “in navigation” rule once a definition has been set. This confusion has become substantial as courts in the second half of the twentieth century have applied the “in navigation” rule to a wide range of maritime actions. The Comment concludes with a suggestion that courts and litigants are in need of a clear set of guidelines to follow when determining how to apply the “in navigation” requirement. At the present time, however, no such guidelines exist.
About the Author
John Munch. B.A. 1993, University of Connecticut; J.D. Candidate 1996, Tulane Law School.
Citation
70 Tul. L. Rev. 717 (1995)