Two pleasure boats crash. They are fishing boats for pleasure. also a water ski boat. There’s A person dies in the crash. Rule Traditional maritime activity have to be a commercial one. doesn’t The Executive Jet test mean that the connection with traditional maritime doesn’t activity is an exclusive commercial one. The Executive Jet test applies to all vessels without regard to their commercial or noncommercial nature. The party seeking to invoke maritime jurisdiction must show a substantial relationship between the activity giving rise to the incident and traditional maritime activity, but it have to be a commercial one. doesn’t The admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the shall extend to and include all cases of damage or injury if it had a disruptive impact on maritime commerce Class notes: The district court concluded that it admiralty jurisdiction. wasn’t Some of the justices thought it was absurd Why did the Supreme Court take this case? that this case would be in admiralty jurisdiction. However, Justice Marshall wrote it. He was a great admiralty jurisdictions justices. If we assume that the river is navigable, then we fall in the locality requirement. But, this a problem. It was easy to determine the locality rule. wasn’t Once we satisfy the locality rule, then we look at which established that Executive Jet only locality enough, that a maritime nexus is also needed. Justice Marshall wasn’t say that executive jet was wrong, but he just added to it. He added that the didn’t traditional maritime activity have to be a commercial one. didn’t Sisson v Ruby Supreme Court 1990 by Justice Marshall Pg. 44 Fire in a marine set out by a yacht. Rule It adds to the Executive and Foremost disruptive impact on test: “Potentially maritime commerce”. The Sisson test added to the other tests, held that the admiralty jurisdiction would extend to such cases if: in addition to (Locality) situs the activity giving rise to the incident bears a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity have to be a commercial one). (doesn’t the incident poses a potential (which is hazard to maritime commerce ambiguous), and Class: There is subject matter jurisdiction for liability action. So, the district court has jurisdiction over claim. Sisson’s limitation adds that there has to be disruptive impact on maritime commerce to “Potentially determine the locality test”.
Two pleasure boats crash. They are fishing boats for pleasure. There’s also a water ski boat. A person dies in the crash. Rule Traditional maritime activity doesn’t have to be a commercial one. The Executive Jet test doesn’t mean that the connection with traditional maritime activity is an exclusive commercial one. The Executive Jet test applies to all vessels without regard to their commercial or noncommercial nature. The party seeking to invoke maritime jurisdiction must show a substantial relationship between the activity giving rise to the incident and traditional maritime activity, but it doesn’t have to be a commercial one. The admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the shall extend to and include all cases of damage or injury if it had a disruptive impact on maritime commerce Class notes: The district court concluded that it wasn’t admiralty jurisdiction. Why did the Supreme Court take this case? Some of the justices thought it was absurd that this case would be in admiralty jurisdiction. However, Justice Marshall wrote it. He was a great admiralty jurisdictions justices. If we assume that the river is navigable, then we fall in the locality requirement. But, this wasn’t a problem. It was easy to determine the locality rule. Once we satisfy the locality rule, then we look at Executive Jet which established that only locality wasn’t enough, that a maritime nexus is also needed. Justice Marshall didn’t say that executive jet was wrong, but he just added to it. He added that the traditional maritime activity didn’t have to be a commercial one. Sisson v Ruby Supreme Court 1990 by Justice Marshall Pg. 44 Fire in a marine set out by a yacht. Rule It adds to the Executive and Foremost test: “Potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce”. The Sisson test added to the other tests, held that the admiralty jurisdiction would extend to such cases if: in addition to situs (Locality) the activity giving rise to the incident bears a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity (doesn’t have to be a commercial one). the incident poses a potential hazard to maritime commerce (which is ambiguous), and Class: There is subject matter jurisdiction for liability action. So, the district court has jurisdiction over Sisson’s limitation claim. adds that there has to be “Potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce to determine the locality test”.
Admiralty.docx