SandBar 8:3, October, 2009
Recommended citation: Payne, Jason M. , Mission Bay Jet Skiing Accident Subject to Admiralty Jurisdiction, 8:3 SandBar 13 (2009).
Mission Bay Jet Skiing Accident Subject to Admiralty Jurisdiction
Mission Bay Jet Sports, LLC v. Columbo, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 13529 (9th Cir. June 24, 2009).
Jason M. Payne, J.D.
On June 24, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that a jet ski accident on an isolated cul-de-sac of the Pacific Ocean falls within federal admiralty jurisdiction. The accident took place in an area near San Diego known as Mission Bay. The area is buoyed off and designated for personal watercraft only, with no commercial ships allowed. While some legal scholars will accept this ruling as a continuation of the modern trend to expand admiralty jurisdiction, others will argue that it takes federal maritime courts into a completely unanticipated and improper direction away from their original intent of protecting maritime commerce.
Background
On the evening of July 29, 2007, Brett Kohl, an employee of Mission Bay Jet Sports, was asked by a friend to provide a jet ski for a group of friends. Kohl met them with a jet ski at the buoyed off area of Mission Bay. Once there, Kohl offered rides to the plaintiffs, Haley Columbo and Jessica Slagel. While riding on the jet ski, Kohl began traveling in tight circles at around 25 mph. The plaintiffs were thrown from the jet ski once but climbed back onto the watercraft. Again, Kohl began traveling in tight circles. The plaintiffs were thrown from the watercraft a second time, but this time, they were seriously injured.
The plaintiffs brought a negligence suit in California state court against Mission Bay Jet Sports and its owner, Robert Adamson (collectively, Adamson). Adamson filed a motion to remove the case to federal district court by invoking the court’s admiralty jurisdiction in order to either seek exoneration or to limit his liability to the $6,005 value of the jet ski under the Shipowner’s Limitation of Liability Act.
Admiralty Jurisdiction
For a tort to fall under admiralty jurisdiction, the activity must meet both a location requirement and have a connection to traditional maritime activity. The federal district court in San Diego ruled that the accident did not fall under admiralty jurisdiction, because there was no potential impact on maritime commerce. The court came to this conclusion because the area was isolated, with no docks, wharfs or commercial shipping in it, and the damages occurred from a single jet ski accident.
On appeal to the Ninth Circuit, the judges evaluated whether the incident fell under admiralty jurisdiction using the location and the connection tests. By following several important Supreme Court cases from the past three decades as well as the court’s own precedent, the court found that placing such accidents under federal admiralty jurisdiction was a logical step in the progression of admiralty law.
Location
The location test requires the incident to “occur on navigable waters and bear a significant relationship to traditional maritime activity.”1 Here, the plaintiffs argued that the buoys and two bridges that separate this area from the rest of Mission Bay form a barrier to commerce. They supported this argument with cases involving permanent dams that effectively prevented commerce. The Ninth Circuit felt the cases were distinct, however, since the buoys, bridges, and distance were not permanent barriers like dams. The court stated that even though this part of Mission Bay is separated from the Bay’s active commercial area, it is nevertheless “open to the Pacific Ocean and subject to the ebb and flow of tides.”2 Using language from a previous ruling, they added that “in tidal waters, the ebb and flow of the tides remains the standard”3 for determining whether a body of water is navigable.
Connection
Once the tort passes the location test, it must then pass the two-part connection test. The first part requires the court to “assess the general features of the type of incident involved” to see if it has “a potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce.”4 If so, the court then looks to “whether ‘the general character’ of the ‘activity giving rise to the incident’ shows a ‘substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity.’”5
In analyzing the connection test, the court relied heavily on a case in which the Supreme Court ruled that an accident involving a collision of two pleasure boats on the Amite River, a navigable body of water in Louisiana, could be tried in federal admiralty court.6 The Supreme Court held that “the federal interest in protecting maritime commerce cannot be adequately served if admiralty jurisdiction is restricted to those individuals actually engaged in commercial maritime activity.”7 It went on to comment that courts should look at how an activity would affect maritime commerce and use that to determine if the incident should come under federal maritime jurisdiction. The court gave the example of how the case they had before them would significantly affect maritime commerce if it had occurred at the mouth of the St. Lawrence Seaway. Using this analysis along with other similar cases involving individuals not participating in maritime commerce, the Ninth Circuit decided this incident could have disrupted maritime commerce. They stated that “[a]mong other things, a vessel from which a passenger goes overboard in navigable waters would likely stop to search and rescue, call for assistance…and ensnarl maritime traffic in the lanes affected.”8
In determining whether the second part of the connection test had been met, the court summed up the general character of the activity occurring at the time of the accident “as operating a vessel in navigable waters.”9 The court also noted that transporting a passenger on a vessel, such as a jet ski, obviously comes within the “substantial relationship” that is required. The court thus concluded this case involved an accident, which occurred during a substantially maritime related activity, on navigable waters with the potential to cause a hazard to maritime commerce.
Conclusion
The Ninth Circuit strictly adhered to the “ebb and flow of the tide” test. The court reversed the decision of a district court judge who was familiar with Mission Bay and felt the waters in the jet ski area were non-navigable under the admiralty jurisdiction definition. This should sound out a warning that no part of the California coast is protected from federal admiralty jurisdiction as long as the circuit follows the “ebb and flow of the tide” test. Though this decision now only affects Ninth Circuit cases, that could change if other federal circuits adopt the ruling or the Supreme Court affirms it.
The still unanswered and potentially most hazardous result of this ruling is the problem that will arise if the Court allows the owner of the jet ski to use the Shipowner’s Limitation of Liability Act to limit his liability. If this occurs it would be an enormous benefit to similar rental businesses located in coastal areas or along navigable interior waterways. The negative impact to the public, however, is the limit on compensation for a rental agency’s negligence. As of now though, this matter lies with the district court.
Endnotes
1. Mission Bay Jet Sports, LLC v. Columbo, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 13529, 5 (9th Cir. June 24, 2009)(quoting Foremost Ins. Co. v. Richardson, 457 U.S. 668, 674 (1982).
2. Id. at 7.
3. Stone v. Paradise Holdings, Inc. 795 F.2d 756, 759 (9th Cir. 1986).
4. Sisson v. Ruby, 497 U.S. 358, 363, 364 n.2 (1990).
5. Mission Bay, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 13529 at *5, 6 (quoting Sisson v. Ruby, 497 U.S. at 364 n.2, 365).
6. Foremost, 457 U.S. at 668.
7. Id. at 674, 675.
8. Mission Bay, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 13529 at *13.
9. Id. at 14.