home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Shareware Overload Trio 2
/
Shareware Overload Trio Volume 2 (Chestnut CD-ROM).ISO
/
dir33
/
cwru_ct.zip
/
88-2041.S
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1993-11-06
|
4KB
|
76 lines
Subject: SISSON v. RUBY, Syllabus
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as
is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is
issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but
has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the
reader. See United States v. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
SISSON v. RUBY et al.
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the seventh circuit
No. 88-2041. Argued April 23, 1990--Decided June 25, 1990
A fire erupted in the washer/dryer area of petitioner Sisson's pleasure
yacht while it was docked at a Lake Michigan marina, destroying the yacht
and damaging several neighboring vessels and the marina. Respondents filed
claims against Sisson for over $275,000 in damages. Invoking a Limited
Liability Act provision that limits a vessel owner's liability for any
damage done without the owner's privity or knowledge to the value of the
vessel and its freight, Sisson filed a petition for declaratory and
injunctive relief in the Federal District Court to limit his liability to
$800, his yacht's salvage value after the fire. The court dismissed the
petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, rejecting Sisson's
argument that it had, inter alia, jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. MDRV
1333(1), which grants district courts maritime jurisdiction. The Court of
Appeals affirmed.
Held: The District Court has jurisdiction over Sisson's limitation claim
pursuant to MDRV 1333(1). Maritime jurisdiction is appropriate when a
potential hazard to maritime commerce arises out of an activity that bears
a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity. Foremost Ins.
Co. v. Richardson, 457 U. S. 668, 675, n. 5. The first half of the test--
that there be a potential hazard to maritime activity--is met because the
fire, which began on a noncommercial vessel at a marina on a navigable
waterway, could have spread to nearby commercial vessels or made the marina
inaccessible to such vessels. Respondents' argument that the potential
effect on maritime commerce was minimal because no commercial vessels were
docked in the marina misunderstands the nature of the inquiry, which
determines an activity's potential impact by examining its general