Is a gangway an appurtenance to a vessel or extension of land?
Is a gangway an appurtenance to a vessel or extension of land?
By: Cami Fergus
Edited By: Brooke E. Michiels
Adamson v. Port of Bellingham, No. 14-1804, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104067 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 6, 2015).Adamson v. Port of Bellingham, No. 14-1804 , 2015 WL 4716421 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 6, 2015).September 20, 2015This is a personal injury case concerning whether an injury on a “gangway” is a maritime tort. The plaintiff was an officer aboard the Car Ferry, MN COLUMBIA, operating the “gangway,” a passenger ramp permanently affixed to the pier that extends from land to water. When a vessel arrives at a port, the gangway is lowered onto the vessel, allowing passengers and others involved in loading operations to get off and on the vessel. Plaintiff was injured on the gangway when it fell. The defendant is a port, Washington Municipal Corporation, which owns the gangway.The court first noted that establishing admiralty jurisdiction is of no consequence, because Plaintiff established diversity jurisdiction, but that substantive maritime law applies. Defendants first moved for partial summary judgment for lack of admiralty jurisdiction, claiming the gangway was an extension of land because it is permanently attached to the pier. Plaintiff argues that the gangway should be considered part of the ship while it is being used for the preparation of passenger and loading operations.The main question before the court is whether Plaintiff’s negligence claim, brought to court by diversity jurisdiction, qualifies as a maritime tort. The court cites a two-part test from the 9th circuit used to identify a maritime tort when the Admiralty Extension Act does not apply. The first prong of the test is the “locality test,” which requires a tort “to occur on or over navigable waters.” The second prong is the “relationship test”, which requires actions giving rise to the tort claim to be significantly related to traditional maritime activity. Taghadomi v. United States, 401 F.3d 1080, 1084 (9th Cir. 2005).Because Defendant does not dispute the “relationship test”, whether or not this is a maritime tort depends on whether the injury occurred “on or over navigable waters.” Plaintiff argues that the “locality test” is satisfied because the injury occurred on a gangway, which should be considered part of a vessel’s equipment. Defendants argue that the gangway is a ramp permanently affixed to a pier, and piers are extensions of land. In The Admiral Peoples, 295 U.S. 649, 651 (1935), the Supreme Court explained a gangway was a ship’s “facility.” However, in Whittington v. Sewer Const. Co., Inc., 541 F.2d 427, 432 (4th Cir. 1976), no maritime tort occurred while one was being lowered from a bridge.Similarly, the court held that the “locality test” is not satisfied because the gangway was permanently affixed to the pier and not an appurtenance of the vessel. The court also notes that, because plaintiff has not brought a claim against the vessel, which might owe a duty of care to employees, a claim against the port will not be sufficient for a maritime tort.The court also addressed two arguments Plaintiff made concerning the damage to the vessel and the Admiralty Extension Act. Plaintiff argues the “locality test” is met, because when the plaintiff was injured, the gangway fell onto the vessel. The court dismissed this argument because Plaintiff did not bring the claim against the vessel’s owner, the State of Alaska. Plaintiff then argues that under the Admiralty Extension Act, maritime jurisdiction is extended to include injuries caused by a vessel even if the injury actually occurs on land. The court determined that this act does not affect whether or not this is a maritime tort because the claim was brought under diversity jurisdiction.
