Water Control Structure Precludes Canal from Being Labeled a Navigable Waterway to Invoke Admiralty Jurisdiction
Water Control Structure Precludes Canal from Being Labeled a Navigable Waterway to Invoke Admiralty Jurisdiction
By: Kent Patterson
Tundidor v. Miami-Dade Cnty., No. 15-12597, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 14108 (11th Cir. 2016).Appellant, Youry Tundidor (“Tundidor”), sustained injuries while on a vessel in the Coral Park Canal, located in Miami-Dade County. He subsequently sued the County for negligence, invoking federal admiralty jurisdiction. His complaint was dismissed in district court on the basis that admiralty jurisdiction only extends to navigable waters, which support international or interstate maritime commerce. The appellate court agreed that because Coral Park Canal has an artificial S-25B water control structure that prohibits vessels from traveling outside Florida, the canal could not be considered a navigable waterway for jurisdictional purposes.On appeal, Tundidor cited several decisions that apply a test of historical navigability. Those cases only considered the power of Congress and federal agencies and did not involve admiralty jurisdiction. He also argued that the concept of a portage would allow the canal to satisfy the location requirement. A portage is neither customary nor a practical means of engaging in interstate maritime commerce. Additionally, navigability requires the body of water to be capable of supporting commercial maritime activity and the possibility of recreational use, assisted by multiple portages, is insufficient.In order to invoke admiralty jurisdiction in a tort case, a complaint must satisfy two elements: “(1) There must be a significant relationship between the alleged wrong and traditional maritime activity (the nexus requirement) and (2) the tort must have occurred on navigable waters (the location requirement).” Because the Coral Park Canal cannot support interstate commerce, it cannot satisfy the location requirement of admiralty jurisdiction; therefore, Tundidor’s claim fails. Accordingly, the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of Tundidor’s complaint.
