On June 25, the Supreme Court in the Sisson case extended admiralty jurisdiction, potentially to cover a wide variety of pleasure boat tort activities.

The case involved a fire aboard the Sisson yacht while it was docked at a Lake Michigan marina. The fire destroyed the yact and several pleasure boats and the marina. Property damage claims of over $275,000 were lodged against the yacht's owner who in turn petitioned the U.S. District Court to limit his liability to $800, the yacht's salvage value, pursuant to the Limitation of Liability Act.

The district court dismissed the petition, rejecting owner Sisson's argument that the court had admiralty jurisdiction to hear the case under 28 United States Code 1333 (1). That provision grants federal district courts jurisdiction over any civil admiralty case. The Supreme Court reversed the district court by holding that there was admiralty jurisdiction, and sent the case back to the lower court for further proceedings on the limitation issue.

The Sisson decision is significant because of its potential impact on recreational boating. Today approximately 17 million recreational pleasure boats are registered with the Coast Guard. Many of these boats, located on naviagable waters, now may be subject to admiralty substantive law, which, in many respects, is distinct from state law.

Admiralty law includes unique principles such as limitation of liability salvage, laches, maritime liens, actions in rem (against the vessel), non-jury trials, loss of the common law defense of contributory negligence and a host of others.

To appreciate the significance of the Sisson case, a review of the development of American admiralty tort jurisdiction is necessary.

Admiralty jurisdiction was founded to provide a uniform body of law to govern domestic and foreign shipping matters. The drafters of the Constitution extended the federal judicial power to all cases of maritime and admiralty jurisdiction. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave federal district courts original jurisdiction, exclusive of the state courts, of admiralty cases that had no common law remedies. Even when a maritime claim is argued outside of federal court, the substantive law applicable to the case remains the federal maritime law, which consists of federal statutes and judge-made laws.

Historically, the place where the wrong occurred has determined whether admiralty tort jurisdiction exists. In 1865 the Supreme Court (70 U.S. 20) held that only those torts occurring on the high seas or U.S. navigable waters support admiralty jurisdiction. In 1948 the Extension Act expanded admiralty jurisdiction to landbased torts committed on vessels. The locality test was modified in 1972 in the Executive Jet case (409 U.S. 249) by adding the requirement that the tort must bear a significant relationship to a traditional maritime activity. This is known as a locality plus maritime nexus test.

The maritime nexus test, however, caused concern with regard to torts involving noncommercial pleasure craft. In 1982 the Supreme Court in the Foremost case (457 U.S. 668) held that a collision of two pleasure boats on navigable water, when coupled with the traditional concern that the admiralty law holds for navigation, need only be potentially hazardous to maritime commerce (the maritime nexus) in order to be governed by admiralty law. The court noted, however, that not every accident on navigable waters that might disrupt maritime commerce necessarily will support maritime jurisdiction.

The 1990 Sisson case expands admiralty jurisdiction to incidents involving pleasure boats accidents beyond navigational errors. A fire on a vessel docked at a marina on navigable waters satisfies the requirement of potential disruption to a commercial maritime activity. The relevant activity was the storage and maintenance of a vessel at a marina on navigable waters. The court went on to note that the need for uniform rules of maritime conduct and liability etends at least to any activity traditionally undertaken by vessels, commercial or non-commercial pleasure craft. Certainly the Sisson case has left the door open for the inclusion of those activities and the expansion of admiralty jurisdiction over pleasure craft.