Waring v. Clarke
5 How. 441, 12 L. Ed. 226, 46 U.S. 441 (1847)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States federal courts extends to torts committed on navigable waters within the ebb and flow of the tide, even if the location is within the body of a county (infra corpus comitatus).
Facts:
- The steamboat Luda was navigating upstream on the Mississippi River at night.
- The steamboat De Soto was navigating downstream on the same river.
- The two vessels collided approximately 95 miles above New Orleans, causing the Luda to sink.
- The location of the collision was on fresh water but was within the ebb and flow of the tide from the Gulf of Mexico.
- The collision occurred within the territorial limits of a county in the State of Louisiana.
- The De Soto was alleged to have been outside of the customary channel for descending navigation.
- The De Soto was also alleged to have been operating without the signal lights required by federal statute.
Procedural Posture:
- The owners of the steamboat Luda filed a libel in rem against the steamboat De Soto in the United States District Court for the District of Louisiana (a federal trial court).
- The District Court entered a decree in favor of the libellants (Luda's owners).
- The claimants of the De Soto (appellants) appealed to the United States Circuit Court for the District of Louisiana (a federal intermediate appellate court).
- The Circuit Court affirmed the decree of the District Court.
- The claimants of the De Soto appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.
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 admiralty jurisdiction of United States federal courts extend to a tortious collision between steamboats that occurs on a navigable river subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, but within the physical boundaries of a state and county?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Wayne
Yes. The admiralty jurisdiction of United States courts extends to torts occurring on navigable waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, even if the location is infra corpus comitatus. The constitutional grant of 'all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction' is not limited by the restrictive interpretation applied by English common law courts at the time of the Revolution. The framers of the Constitution were more familiar with the broader jurisdiction exercised by vice-admiralty courts in the American colonies, which extended into rivers, ports, and creeks. To tie American constitutional interpretation to the shifting statutory and judicial landscape of England would be illogical and would improperly limit the power of Congress and the federal courts. Furthermore, the test for admiralty jurisdiction in cases of tort is the locality of the act; if the act occurs on tidewater, the jurisdiction attaches. Prior decisions of this Court have already affirmed that the jurisdiction extends as far as the tide flows, and this principle applies to torts such as collisions.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Woodbury
No. The jurisdiction of federal admiralty courts over torts should be confined to the high seas, outside the body of a county, consistent with the established English rule at the time of the Revolution. This English limitation, codified in the statutes of Richard II, was not a mere technicality but a fundamental protection of the right to a trial by jury and the application of the common law, principles highly cherished by the American colonists. Extending admiralty jurisdiction inland encroaches upon the sovereignty of state courts and deprives citizens of their right to have local disputes tried by a jury of their peers under familiar state laws. The framers' repeated protests against the British crown extending admiralty 'beyond their ancient limits' demonstrates their intent to adopt the restrictive, not the expansive, view of this jurisdiction. The proper boundary for admiralty tort jurisdiction is the line of the county, not the unpredictable and arbitrary reach of tidewater far inland.
Analysis:
This decision marked a significant expansion of federal admiralty jurisdiction, decisively rejecting the restrictive English common law rule that limited jurisdiction to the 'high seas.' By establishing the 'tidewater' test for torts, the Court brought vast stretches of America's inland river systems under federal judicial power, reflecting the growing importance of river commerce. This case set the precedent for further expansion in The Propeller Genesee Chief v. Fitzhugh (1851), which abandoned the tidewater test in favor of a 'navigability' test, better suited to America's great inland lakes and rivers where tidal influence is absent.
