Lauritzen v. Larsen
345 U.S. 571, 1953 U.S. LEXIS 2533, 97 L. Ed. 2d 1254 (1953)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a maritime tort claim involving foreign elements, the determination of which nation's substantive law applies is made by weighing several connecting factors, with the law of the ship's flag holding the most significant weight.
Facts:
- Larsen, a Danish seaman, joined the crew of the Randa, a ship of Danish flag and registry, while he was temporarily in New York.
- The Randa was owned by a Danish citizen.
- Larsen signed ship's articles, written in Danish, which stipulated that the rights of crew members would be governed by Danish law and his union contract.
- Larsen was a member of the Danish Seamen's Union, whose contract was incorporated into his employment agreement.
- He was negligently injured in the course of his employment while the Randa was in the harbor of Havana, Cuba.
Procedural Posture:
- Larsen sued the shipowner under the Jones Act in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- The shipowner argued that Danish law was applicable and contested the court's jurisdiction.
- The District Court, as the court of first instance, ruled that American law applied.
- A jury rendered a verdict in favor of Larsen.
- The shipowner, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment.
- The shipowner, as petitioner, successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Jones Act apply to a personal injury claim brought by a Danish seaman who signed his employment contract in New York for an injury that occurred on a Danish-flagged and Danish-owned vessel while in Cuban waters?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Jackson
No. The Jones Act does not apply to a maritime tort involving a foreign seaman injured on a foreign vessel in foreign waters, because the connecting factors overwhelmingly favor the application of foreign law over that of the United States. In determining the applicable law for a maritime tort, courts must weigh multiple points of contact between the transaction and the nations involved. In this case, the law of the flag (Denmark), the allegiance of the shipowner (Denmark), and the allegiance of the seaman (Denmark) are all foreign. These factors far outweigh the single American contact—the place of contract (New York)—which the court deemed fortuitous and insignificant, especially since the contract itself specified Danish law. Applying U.S. law based on such a slight connection would violate principles of international comity and create conflict with the laws of other maritime nations.
Dissenting - Justice Black
Yes. Justice Black stated that he agreed with the Court of Appeals and would affirm its judgment, which had applied the Jones Act.
Analysis:
This landmark decision establishes the controlling choice-of-law framework for maritime personal injury cases under the Jones Act involving foreign elements. By creating a multi-factor test and elevating the 'law of the flag' as the most significant factor, the Court promoted uniformity and predictability in international shipping law. The ruling prevents the Jones Act from being applied broadly to foreign sailors on foreign ships, thereby respecting international comity and preventing conflicts with the legal systems of other maritime nations. Future courts must apply this balancing test to determine if a case has substantial enough contacts with the United States to justify applying its laws.
