maritime tort
Definitions from Case Law · United States Supreme Court
Definitions from Case Law
From 346 U.S. 406 - Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn · 1953Most cited · 2,890 citing opinions
A maritime tort is a type of action which the Constitution had placed under national power to control in its substantive as well as its procedural features; a state may not deprive a person of any substantial admiralty rights as defined in controlling acts of Congress or by interpretative decisions of this Court.
How the Supreme Court has restated “maritime tort”
Each Supreme Court definition of “maritime tort,” sized by how often later courts cited it. “Change” is measured by wording overlap with earlier definitions — a rough signal, not a semantic judgment.
How often courts cite the cases defining “maritime tort”
Court decisions citing the 6 opinions that defined “maritime tort” — 3,965 in all, by decade. Counts are citations to the defining cases as a whole, not verified uses of the term. The dip in the most recent years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the latest years.
All 6 definitions, chronological · 1908–1953
- 1908·208 U.S. 316 - Cleveland Terminal Valley Railroad Company v. Cleveland Steamship Company[p2]· cited 280×ORIGINAL
The true meaning of the rule of locality in cases of maritime torts was that the wrong must have been committed wholly on navigable waters, or, at least, the substance and consummation of the same must have taken place upon those waters, to be within the admiralty jurisdiction. A substantial cause of action arising out of the wrong must be complete within the locality on which the jurisdiction depended.
locality rule
that question must be resolved according to the locality and character of the injured thing—the bridge, with its spans and supporting piers—at the time of the collision. It was then that the causal influence of the negligent management of the vessel took effect injuriously and gave rise to a cause of action; and what followed is important only as bearing upon the extent of the injury and resulting liability.
locality rule
- 1929·279 U.S. 109 - London Guarantee & Accident Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission[p27]· cited 146×
the jurisdiction of the admiralty over a maritime tort does not depend upon the wrong having been committed on board a vessel, but rather upon its having been committed upon the high seas or other navigable waters
The injury to the passengers resulted from negligence of the company's agents in the navigation of the launch. It was a maritime tort. The rights and obligations of the parties depended on and arose out of the maritime law.
The foundation of the right to recover is a wrongful act or omission taking effect aboard the ship and resulting in death upon the land. This is a maritime tort.