Admiralty Law: Maritime Liability and Dispute Resolution

The primary objective of maritime law is to provide a uniform set of rules for the global shipping industry. Because vessels move between jurisdictions, having a centralized body of law prevents the legal chaos that would arise if every port applied its own distinct rules. For businesses, this means that an incident occurring in international waters can often be resolved in a U.S. Federal court through the application of long-standing admiralty principles.

For admiralty law to apply, the incident must generally occur on “navigable waters” - waters that are capable of being used for interstate or foreign commerce. This includes the high seas, territorial coastal waters, and inland rivers that connect states or lead to the ocean.

One of the most powerful features of admiralty law is the ability to file an in rem action. This allows a claimant to sue the vessel itself as a legal entity, rather than just the shipowner. SJKP LLP utilizes these actions to secure maritime claims by arresting a vessel, ensuring that assets remain within the court's reach until the dispute is resolved.

Any accident that poses a potential hazard to maritime commerce or involves a vessel on navigable waters can trigger jurisdiction. This includes collisions, groundings, and fires on board a ship. Even if the damage is strictly economic, such as a breach of a ship-repair contract, it may still fall under the federal admiralty umbrella.

Yes, provided the waters are "navigable." If a river or lake can be used as a highway for commerce between two states or to the sea, it is subject to federal admiralty jurisdiction. This extends to offshore oil rigs and platforms, though the specific application of law can vary depending on whether the structure is classified as a "vessel."

A common misconception is that admiralty law only applies to commercial shipping. In reality, accidents involving private yachts or jet skis on navigable waters are frequently litigated in federal court under admiralty law principles. SJKP LLP manages these cases to ensure that private owners can utilize maritime-specific defenses, such as the limitation of liability.

Under the Limitation of Liability Act of 1851, a vessel owner may be able to limit their total liability to the post-accident value of the vessel and its pending freight. This is a critical defensive tool that SJKP LLP employs to protect shipowners from catastrophic claims following a major casualty, provided the owner lacked "privity or knowledge" of the negligence.

A maritime lien is a non-possessory right that "attaches" to a vessel to secure a debt or a claim. If a supplier is unpaid or a cargo owner is damaged, they can "arrest" the ship through a federal U.S. Marshal. SJKP LLP acts swiftly in these scenarios to either execute an arrest to secure our client's interest or to provide "Letter of Undertaking" (LOU) security to free a client's vessel and keep the supply chain moving.

Maritime cases in federal court are typically "bench trials," meaning they are decided by a judge rather than a jury (unless there is an independent basis for jurisdiction like the Jones Act). These federal admiralty jurisdiction proceedings follow the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims, which provide the specialized procedures for arrests and attachments.

In many maritime operations, the owner of the ship and the party operating it (the charterer) are different. Vessel liability often depends on the type of charter—whether "time," "voyage," or "bareboat." We deconstruct these charter parties to determine which party bears the ultimate responsibility for maintenance, navigation, and cargo safety.

Maritime risk is usually covered by specialized Protection and Indemnity (P&I) Clubs. SJKP LLP coordinates with these mutual insurance associations to manage maritime claims and ensure that the tactical legal strategy aligns with the broader insurance coverage framework.