Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach
2013 U.S. LEXIS 907, 184 L. Ed. 2d 604, 568 U.S. 115 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A structure qualifies as a "vessel" under 1 U.S.C. § 3 only if a reasonable observer, looking to the structure's objective physical characteristics and activities, would conclude that it is practically designed or used for carrying people or things over water, not merely because it is capable of floating and being moved.
Facts:
- In 2002, Fane Lozman purchased a 60-by-12-foot floating home.
- The structure was a house-like plywood building with a sitting room, bedroom, kitchen, and office space, built on an empty bilge space that kept it afloat.
- The home had no rudder, steering mechanism, or self-propulsion, and it relied on shore connections for utilities.
- Upon purchase, Lozman had the home towed approximately 200 miles to North Bay Village, Florida.
- Over the next several years, Lozman had the structure towed twice more between nearby marinas.
- In 2006, Lozman had the home towed another 70 miles to a marina owned by the City of Riviera Beach, where he moored it.
- A dispute arose between Lozman and the City of Riviera Beach regarding dockage fees and his continued presence at the marina.
Procedural Posture:
- The City of Riviera Beach filed an in rem lawsuit against Fane Lozman's floating home in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, seeking a maritime lien for dockage fees.
- Lozman moved to dismiss the case, arguing the court lacked admiralty jurisdiction because his floating home was not a "vessel" under federal law.
- The District Court denied Lozman's motion and granted summary judgment to the City on the jurisdictional issue, holding that the floating home was a "vessel."
- Following a bench trial on the merits, the District Court found in favor of the City.
- Lozman, as appellant, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment, agreeing that the floating home was a "vessel" because it was capable of being used as a means of transportation on water.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Lozman's petition for a writ of certiorari to resolve a circuit split on the definition of a "vessel."
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 a floating home that lacks self-propulsion and other features common to ships, but is capable of being moved by tow, qualify as a "vessel" under 1 U.S.C. § 3, thereby invoking federal admiralty jurisdiction?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Breyer
No, the floating home does not qualify as a "vessel." A structure is a vessel only if a reasonable observer, looking to its physical characteristics and activities, would consider it to be designed to a practical degree for carrying people or things over water. The Eleventh Circuit's "anything that floats" interpretation is too broad and inconsistent with precedent. Lozman's floating home had no features for navigation, such as a rudder, steering mechanism, or self-propulsion. Its physical characteristics—a rectangular bottom, non-watertight windows and French doors, and reliance on shore utilities—are those of a home, not a watercraft. Its infrequent movement, which was only accomplished by tow and required a second boat for stability, does not constitute actual use for transportation in a practical sense. This objective, purpose-based test avoids relying on the owner's subjective intent while remaining consistent with cases like Stewart v. Dutra Constr. Co., where a dredge was deemed a vessel because it regularly transported equipment and crew, and Evansville, where a wharfboat was not.
Dissenting - Justice Sotomayor
The Court errs in concluding the craft is not a vessel and should instead remand the case for further fact-finding under the proper objective standard. While the majority is correct to reject the Eleventh Circuit's overly broad test and the use of subjective intent, it creates a novel and flawed "reasonable observer" test. This new test improperly introduces subjective aesthetic judgments, such as the style of the home's windows and doors, into the analysis. The majority wrongly dismisses the craft's actual history of being towed for hundreds of miles while carrying furnishings and people, which is objective evidence of a transportation function. The record is too underdeveloped to determine the craft's practical capabilities, and by making a definitive ruling, the majority unsettles lower court precedents that have correctly identified non-self-propelled houseboats as vessels. The proper course would be to remand for the lower courts to apply the correct objective principles to a more complete factual record.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the definition of "vessel" for purposes of federal admiralty jurisdiction by rejecting a simple "capable of floating" test. It establishes the "reasonable observer" standard, which requires a fact-intensive, objective inquiry into a structure's design and function. The ruling limits the reach of federal maritime law over borderline structures like floating homes, casinos, and work platforms that are not practically designed for transport. By emphasizing objective physical attributes over subjective intent or mere theoretical capability, the case provides clearer guidance but also potentially increases litigation over the specific characteristics of such structures in future jurisdictional disputes.
Unlock the full brief for Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach