Admiralty law historically covered torts and contracts on the high seas, while maritime law covered all other legal disputes on navigable waters. The distinction has faded, and US courts use the terms interchangeably. Federal courts have developed the meaning of the terms over time. Federal courts continue to have jurisdiction, but states can exercise jurisdiction in certain circumstances, applying federal law. Admiralty and maritime law covers many categories, and to enforce its jurisdiction, a court will arrest a vessel, requiring the owner to post a bond.
The difference between admiralty law and maritime law has historically been that admiralty law was limited to disputes relating to torts and contracts on the high seas. Maritime law gradually developed to include all other types of legal disputes arising on the high seas and other navigable waters. The wrongs are legal errors, and the term “high seas” refers to the oceans beyond a country’s territorial jurisdiction. Navigable waters typically are any body of water that serves as a highway for trade between countries or states. The distinction between the two types of law has faded with time, and US courts now use the terms interchangeably.
Admiralty law in the United States evolved from English law. The American colonies initially had vice admiralty courts that derived their authority from England. After the United States gained its independence, the framers of the United States Constitution stipulated that its federal courts would have admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. The Constitution, however, does not define its terms. Federal courts, therefore, have developed the meaning of the terms over time through different rulings, which have blurred any distinction between admiralty and maritime law.
England’s enforcement of the Admiralty Act was restrictive from the perspective of the United States, and as a result, the United States expanded its jurisdiction in this area. One justification was that the United States had internal waters. Had the United States adopted England’s narrow application, it would have deprived the federal courts of jurisdiction over claims arising from its internal waters. This would result in each state asserting its own jurisdiction, which would result in the development of numerous bodies of law and confusion.
Federal courts continue to have admiralty and maritime jurisdiction in the U.S. This does not prevent states from exercising admiralty and maritime jurisdiction in certain circumstances, but states must apply federal law to disputes involving the admiralty and maritime law. This ensures consistency of decisions and allows for the evolution of a uniform body of law, which allows individuals and businesses to act without confusion about what a jurisdiction may require. The purpose of allowing states to have concurrent jurisdiction is to allow a party to have access to state legal remedies unavailable under federal law.
Admiralty and maritime law covers many categories, including party charters, cargo charters, collision law, pilotage, personal injury, and piracy. To enforce its jurisdiction in these areas, a court will act to arrest a vessel. This prevents an owner from escaping the jurisdiction of a court. The owner will then be required to post a significant bond to recover his vessel while a case is pending. This option is usually preferred over the loss of a ship that may be worth millions of dollars.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
