Federal maritime law generally governs legal actions involving injuries at sea, in port, or on an oil rig. Although many maritime injury cases are heard in state courts, these courts must apply the principles of federal maritime law.
However, state law may govern some aspects of the compensation process in state court. The intersection of state and federal maritime law is complex and constantly shaped by new cases.
Maritime lawsuits based on Federal Law can be filed in state courts.
According to Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, all maritime and admiralty cases are under the jurisdiction of United States federal courts.
Congress further specified that this jurisdiction exists over “all cases of damage or injury, to person or property, caused by a vessel on navigable water, notwithstanding that such damage or injury be done or consummated on land.” This definition can apply to a variety of activities such as marine construction, offshore drilling, oilfield and oil rig work, fishing, and shipping.
However, a plaintiff may choose to file their lawsuit in state court, even if the claim is based on federal maritime law.
This means that if you are an injured sailor, you may file a Jones Act claim in either a state court or federal court. Similarly, an injured oil rig or dock worker may also sue in state court, even if their claims are based on the federal Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act or Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act.
A State Court May Apply State Law When Adjudicating Federal Maritime Cases
Legal cases involve two kinds of law: procedural and substantive. Procedural law dictates how the court will hear the case. Substantive law, on the other hand, dictates how people can or should behave. For example, the Jones Act is substantive in that it gives a sailor the right to sue a negligent ship owner. The rules of evidence, on the other hand, are procedural because they dictate how a court may hear evidence in a legal case.
When a state court hears a federal case, it must apply federal law on substantive matters, even if the federal law contradicts state law. However, the state court is free to apply its own procedural law. In fact, it must use its own procedural rules because there is no basis for a state court to apply federal procedural law.
How might this affect you? Generally, state courts are considered to favor plaintiffs slightly more than federal courts. Federal procedure tends to make it more difficult for injured plaintiffs to successfully prove their cases since there may be more intermediate steps between filing a lawsuit and going to trial.
Joint and Several Liability in Maritime Law Cases
The substantive federal laws that state courts apply in maritime law cases can be beneficial to a plaintiff. Beyond the fact that federal law gives a sailor the right to sue for negligence in the first place, federal law also includes the concept of joint and several liability, which is not recognized in all states.
This doctrine states that each party that contributed to your injury is equally liable for your injuries, no matter how minimal that contribution may have been.
Joint and several liability means that all parties who are deemed at fault are equally and fully responsible for compensating your damages in a successful claim.
If one party is unable to pay their apportioned liability, all other defendants are required to make up the difference so that the plaintiff receives the full amount. If one party is found 40% responsible but can only provide 10% of the financial compensation awarded, the other parties are generally compelled to pay the other 30%.
