admiralty doctrine in Louisiana

1992Kratzer v. Capital Marine Supply, Inc., 645 F.2d 477 (5th Cir.1981).

1990Kratzer v. Capital Marine Supply, Inc., 645 F.2d 477 (5th Cir.1981).

1978While it is permissible for a state statute to supplement federal maritime policies, in doing so it must recognize that the source of the controlling law is national and that it cannot adversely affect any rights created by the dominant federal law. * * * ” ( 264 So.2d at 272-273 ) The Court concluded: “ * * * Based upon the decrees of the United States Supreme Court in the cases of Pope and Garrett, and their application in the cases of Oroz and Larios , together with the rationale emanating from this Circuit expressed in the Guil-beau and Ferdinandtsen cases, we are constrained to hold that

1978While it is permissible for a state statute to supplement federal maritime policies, in doing so it must recognize that the source of the controlling law is national and that it cannot adversely affect any rights created by the dominant federal law. * * * ” ( 264 So.2d at 272-273 ) The Court concluded: “ * * * Based upon the decrees of the United States Supreme Court in the cases of Pope and Garrett, and their application in the cases of Oroz and Larios , together with the rationale emanating from this Circuit expressed in the Guil-beau and Ferdinandtsen cases, we are constrained to hold that

1978While it is permissible for a state statute to supplement federal maritime policies, in doing so it must recognize that the source of the controlling law is national and that it cannot adversely affect any rights created by the dominant federal law. * * * ” ( 264 So.2d at 272-273 ) The Court concluded: “ * * * Based upon the decrees of the United States Supreme Court in the cases of Pope and Garrett, and their application in the cases of Oroz and Larios , together with the rationale emanating from this Circuit expressed in the Guil-beau and Ferdinandtsen cases, we are constrained to hold that

1978While it is permissible for a state statute to supplement federal maritime policies, in doing so it must recognize that the source of the controlling law is national and that it cannot adversely affect any rights created by the dominant federal law. * * * ” ( 264 So.2d at 272-273 ) The Court concluded: “ * * * Based upon the decrees of the United States Supreme Court in the cases of Pope and Garrett, and their application in the cases of Oroz and Larios , together with the rationale emanating from this Circuit expressed in the Guil-beau and Ferdinandtsen cases, we are constrained to hold that

2007In Valdez v. Amedvig Tankships, Ltd , 786 So. 2d 827 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2001), a case that involved a sheriff seizing a vessel to satisfy an admiralty claim, the court was faced with the issue of whether the sheriff's fee and commission could be taxed as costs against the vessel owners.

1996Danos v. McDermott, Inc., 563 So.2d 968 (La.App. 1 Cir.1990).

1993Reed v. Seacoast Products, Inc., 458 So.2d 971 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1984), citing Drachenberg v. Canal Barge Co., Inc., 571 F.2d 912 (5th Cir. 1978), appeal after remand, 621 F.2d 760 (5th Cir.1980).

1993Reed v. Seacoast Products, Inc., 458 So.2d 971 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1984), citing Drachenberg v. Canal Barge Co., Inc., 571 F.2d 912 (5th Cir. 1978), appeal after remand, 621 F.2d 760 (5th Cir.1980).

1993We therefore find no persuasive reason for not following the earlier admiralty rule and thus hold that funeral expenses are compensable." ( 398 U.S. at 591 , 94 S.Ct. at 818 ).

1993We therefore find no persuasive reason for not following the earlier admiralty rule and thus hold that funeral expenses are compensable." ( 398 U.S. at 591 , 94 S.Ct. at 818 ).

1993Reed v. Seacoast Products, Inc., 458 So.2d 971 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1984), citing Drachenberg v. Canal Barge Co., Inc., 571 F.2d 912 (5th Cir. 1978), appeal after remand, 621 F.2d 760 (5th Cir.1980).

1991It is true that the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Powell v. Offshore Navigation, supra , and Cruz v. Hendy Intern.

1991This is further buttressed by the admiralty jurisdiction test enunciated by the Supreme Court in Foremost Insurance Co. v. Richardson, 457 U.S. 668, 674 , 102 S.Ct. 2654, 2658 , 73 L.Ed.2d 300 (1982) which requires that the act occur on navigable waters and there must be a significant relationship between the wrong and traditional maritime activity.

1991This is further buttressed by the admiralty jurisdiction test enunciated by the Supreme Court in Foremost Insurance Co. v. Richardson, 457 U.S. 668, 674 , 102 S.Ct. 2654, 2658 , 73 L.Ed.2d 300 (1982) which requires that the act occur on navigable waters and there must be a significant relationship between the wrong and traditional maritime activity.

1990This brings the entire case "on the admiralty side" of the federal court, where trial by jury is not available to either party. [4] Willis v. Woodson Construction Co., 593 F.Supp. 464 (W.D.La. 1983).

1986The defendant must show that the violation could not have been one of the causes of plaintiff's injury." This jury charge instructed the jury to apply the Pennsylvania Rule, an admiralty rule originally developed in a collision case, The Pennsylvania v. Troop, 86 U.S. (19 Wall) 125, 22 L.Ed. 148 (1874).

1984As stated in Brown & Root Marine Operators, Inc. v. Zapata Offshore Company, 377 F.2d 724 (5th Cir.1967): “When a moving vessel collides with an anchored vessel or a fixed object, there is a presumption the moving vessel is at fault.

1984Davis v. Hill Engineering, Inc., 549 F.2d 314 (5th Cir.1977).

1978Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans v. Sanders, 264 So.2d 270 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1972), writ ref., 262 La. 1157 , 266 So.2d 443 ; Lavergne v. Western Co. of North America, Inc., 346 So.2d 239 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1977).

1978Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans v. Sanders, 264 So.2d 270 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1972), writ ref., 262 La. 1157 , 266 So.2d 443 ; Lavergne v. Western Co. of North America, Inc., 346 So.2d 239 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1977).

1978Atlantic & Gulf Stevedores, Inc. v. Ellerman Lines, supra ; Romero v. Bethlehem Steel, supra ; Ballard v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc., supra ; cf. Carlisle Packing Company v. Sandanger, supra ; Fitzgerald v. United States, supra. Further, regarding the above principles, there is no apparent conceptual distinction between an admiralty claim brought under the savings to suitors clause as a civil action in federal court and one brought as a civil action in state court. [5] We conclude, therefore, that since trial by jury is a remedy recognized in this state, this remedy is available to a litigant

1978While it is permissible for a state statute to supplement federal maritime policies, in doing so it must recognize that the source of the controlling law is national and that it cannot adversely affect any rights created by the dominant federal law. * * * ” ( 264 So.2d at 272-273 ) The Court concluded: “ * * * Based upon the decrees of the United States Supreme Court in the cases of Pope and Garrett, and their application in the cases of Oroz and Larios , together with the rationale emanating from this Circuit expressed in the Guil-beau and Ferdinandtsen cases, we are constrained to hold that

1978While it is permissible for a state statute to supplement federal maritime policies, in doing so it must recognize that the source of the controlling law is national and that it cannot adversely affect any rights created by the dominant federal law. * * * ” ( 264 So.2d at 272-273 ) The Court concluded: “ * * * Based upon the decrees of the United States Supreme Court in the cases of Pope and Garrett, and their application in the cases of Oroz and Larios , together with the rationale emanating from this Circuit expressed in the Guil-beau and Ferdinandtsen cases, we are constrained to hold that

1978Further, if, in fact, "federal maritime procedure is controlling, at least in procedural matters which go to the heart of the nature of the ultimate factual determination" ( Lavergne, supra, 363 So.2d at 1246 ), and a state court may not grant a jury trial in actions based upon general maritime law, nor review the findings of that jury, the same rule must necessarily apply to an admiralty claim brought on the civil side of federal court.

1978Further, if, in fact, "federal maritime procedure is controlling, at least in procedural matters which go to the heart of the nature of the ultimate factual determination" ( Lavergne, supra, 363 So.2d at 1246 ), and a state court may not grant a jury trial in actions based upon general maritime law, nor review the findings of that jury, the same rule must necessarily apply to an admiralty claim brought on the civil side of federal court.

1969See Arnson v. Murphy, 109 U.S. 238, 243 , 3 S.Ct. 184 , 27 L.Ed. 920 ." The United States Supreme Court has apparently not yet specifically ruled upon the precise issue here presented, declaring in McAllister v. Magnolia Petroleum Company, 1958, 357 U.S. 221, 224 , 78 S.Ct. 1201, 1203 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1272 , 1275: "In the view we take of this case it is unnecessary for us to decide the broad question of whether a state court is free to apply its own statutes of limitation to an admiralty right of action for which no special limitation is prescribed, or whether it is bound to determine the timelines

1969See Arnson v. Murphy, 109 U.S. 238, 243 , 3 S.Ct. 184 , 27 L.Ed. 920 ." The United States Supreme Court has apparently not yet specifically ruled upon the precise issue here presented, declaring in McAllister v. Magnolia Petroleum Company, 1958, 357 U.S. 221, 224 , 78 S.Ct. 1201, 1203 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1272 , 1275: "In the view we take of this case it is unnecessary for us to decide the broad question of whether a state court is free to apply its own statutes of limitation to an admiralty right of action for which no special limitation is prescribed, or whether it is bound to determine the timelines

1969In Giddens v. Isbrandtsen Company (4th Cir., 1966) 355 F.2d 125, 126 , it is observed that: "This is the law of the sea, governing irrespective of the form or forum of the suit.

1969App., 225 So.2d 114 , rendered this date by us, wherein Judge Landry, speaking for this panel discusses the comparative elements of state statutes of prescription or limitation and the admiralty doctrine of laches.