Admiralty Jurisdiction Over Claims in Tort: Applying the Grubart Test

Does Federal Admiralty Jurisdiction Extend to Recreational Torts?

Admiralty Jurisdiction Over Claims in Tort: Applying the Grubart Test

By: Jamie Johnson

In Tandon v. Ulbrick, the Second Circuit addressed the issue of whether federal admiralty jurisdiction extends to tort claims arising from a physical altercation among recreational visitors on and around a permanent dock surrounded by navigable water.Appellants Tandon and Doohan were the owners of a 39-foot fiberglass powerboat designed for recreational purposes. On May 28, 2010, visitors on this boat were involved in a fistfight on a floating dock operated by Appellee, Captain’s Cove. Captain’s Cove operates a Marina in Connecticut that includes a restaurant and several docks, including a floating dock only accessible by water. On the day of the incident, Tandon and Doohan took several passengers to Captain’s Cove to get food and drinks. Appellee Ulbrick was also invited, but arrived by car. At the same time, Genna, a third-party defendant, also made a visit to Captain’s Cove in a boat owned by one of Genna’s companions. The Genna party and the Tandon party, who had not previously known each other, left the restaurant about the same time. Upon boarding the Tandon boat, a member of their party fell into the water and injured himself. Genna’s party started to laugh and yell unwelcome comments towards the person whom fell overboard. Both parties continued to move to the floating dock on their respective water taxis.From that point on, the story diverges. According to Ulbrick, as the other boat made its way down the channel, Tandon noticed that the fallen passenger was bleeding from a scalp wound and consequently asked Doohan to pull the boat over. However, according to the complaint by Genna, the Tandon boat closely followed the Genna party towards the floating dock yelling and even throwing a beer bottle at them. Either way, the parties agree that their boats were docked at the floating dock when a fistfight broke out between Genna’s party and Tandon’s party. One passenger from Tandon’s crew hit Genna and knocked him off the dock. Genna claims that he suffered severe injuries from the lack of oxygen as a result of being held underwater.Genna filed suit in state court against Captain’s Cove and other persons associated, alleging that they were liable for his injuries under theories of negligent supervision, negligence, and reckless dispensing of liquor. Captain’s Cove filed a third-party complaint against Tandon, Doohan, and their passengers, seeking contribution and indemnity for any damages they may have to pay to Genna. Genna then amended the complaint to add them as third-party defendants. Next, Tandon and Doohan filed a petition for limitation of liability in the District of Connecticut, but the limitation was denied for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court stayed the state court proceeding. The Gennas and Ulbrick both filed claims in the limitation proceeding. Because the issuefailed both the location and connection test that was set forth in Grubart v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock, Co.,the district court agreed with Ulbrick and dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Thus prompting Tandon and Doohan to file this appeal.Although the Limitation of Liability Act in maritime law provides for a federal cause of action for a vessel owner seeking exoneration or limitation, it does not provide an “independent foundation for federal admiralty jurisdiction.” In other words, although they may be able to file this claim, the court still may lack jurisdiction to hear the claim. The district court only has jurisdiction to hear the case if it already has jurisdiction over the underlying claims in the case. Therefore the court turned to whether they had jurisdiction to hear a claim arising from a tort among recreational passengers.The Second Circuit used the location and connection test previously developed in Grubart. A court applying the location test must determine whether the tort occurred on a navigable waterway or whether injury suffered on land was caused by a vessel on navigable water. The connection test consists of two prongs. First, the court must determine whether the incident has a potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce. Secondly, a court must determine whether the general character of the activity giving rise to the incident shows a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity. All considerations must be present in order for federal admiralty jurisdiction to apply. This test remains the current test for admiralty jurisdiction over tort claims.The analysis began with the location test, evaluating whether the underlying tort occurred on land or a navigable waterway. The fight took place on a dock that was completely surrounded by a navigable waterway; however, that dock was connected by pilings driven into the harbor floor. The dock also remained permanently situated and consequently not considered a vessel for admiralty purposes. However, the injury extended beyond the dock. Once in the water, Genna was held under water to the point of asphyxiation. Because the tort had occurred both on land and in water, the Second Circuit decided to assume arguendo that the location test is met.The court’s analysis then focused in on the insufficiency of first prong of connection test by stating that, “this type of incident does not have a potentially disruptive effect on maritime commerce.” This subpart includes both a subjective and objective analysis. Thus, the court looks not only to whether maritime commerce was actually disrupted, but also to whether similar occurrences are likely to be disruptive. The court holds that this type of incident does not realistically pose a threat to maritime commerce. In reaching the decision, the court stated that a fistfight could not immediately disrupt navigation because it does not create any obstruction to the free passage of commercial ships along navigable waterways. Nor does a fistfight does not lead to disruption in the course of the waterway itself. Further, a fistfight cannot immediately damage nearby commercial vessels because it does not disrupt the entire dock. Also, as an incident on a permanent dock the fistfight does not pose the same types of risks as incidents on vessels in navigable waters (i.e. collision). Lastly, the incident involved only altercations between recreational visitors, not persons engaged in maritime commerce.Several counterarguments were raised, but not accepted by the Second Circuit as valid. Instead, the court held “that federal admiralty jurisdiction does not extend to tort claims arising from a physical altercation among recreational visitors on and around a permanent dock surrounded by navigable water, because such an altercation does not have a potentially disruptive effect on maritime commerce.”