Admiralty and Maritime Law: Jurisdiction, Seaworthiness, and Cargo Liability
Foundations and Jurisdictional Boundaries
A candidate must first separate admiralty jurisdiction from the substantive rules that follow it. In the United States, federal admiralty jurisdiction over torts uses a two-part test: the incident must occur on navigable waters (the location test) and bear a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity (the connection test). Courts apply the connection test pragmatically, asking whether the activity has a potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce and whether the general character of the activity shows a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity. Contracts invoke admiralty jurisdiction when they are wholly maritime; mixed contracts require looking at the primary purpose. A trap: assuming a tort near the water automatically qualifies, or that a vessel's status alone settles jurisdiction. Another trap is confusing maritime attachment and lien rules (Rule B and Rule C actions, Supplemental Admiralty Rules) with in rem jurisdiction over the vessel itself.
Seaworthiness and the Carrier's Duties
Under the Hague and Hague-Visby regimes, the carrier owes a non-delegable duty to exercise due diligence to make the vessel seaworthy before and at the beginning of the voyage, and must properly and carefully load, handle, stow, carry, keep, care for, and discharge the cargo. The carrier may invoke nautical fault and fire exceptions, but cannot contract out of the due-diligence duty. A common exam trap is treating the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) package limitation as automatic; the shipper must be given a fair opportunity to declare a higher value, and the limitation may be lost through an unreasonable deviation or by the carrier's failure to provide that opportunity. Another trap: confusing the carrier's one-year time bar for suit with the notice-of-loss provision.
Worked Rule of Thumb
When a cargo claim arises, run this sequence: (1) identify the applicable regime from the bill of lading (Hague, Hague-Visby, or COGSA); (2) ask whether the loss was caused by an excepted peril, and if so whether the carrier's due diligence failed; (3) apply the package or weight limitation unless the shipper declared value; (4) check the one-year suit time bar. Always note who bears the burden: the cargo interest makes a prima facie case of delivery in good order and outturn damage; the carrier then must prove an exception, and the cargo interest may rebut with unseaworthiness or lack of due diligence.