Sisson v. Ruby (1989)
- Docket
- 88-2041
- Decided
- 1989-01-01
Summary
Question: Does a federal district court have jurisdiction over a suit to limit the liability of a yacht owner regarding the fire on his vessel? Conclusion: Yes. Justice Thurgood Marshall delivered the opinion of seven members of the court. The Court held that the district court has maritime jurisdiction when the incident in question represents a potential hazard to maritime commerce and bears a substantial relationship to maritime activity. In this case, although the fire caused minimal damage, it had the potential to be extremely destructive and disrupt the maritime activity of the marina. The Court held that such a determination should be made based on the nature of the incident rather than its actual result. The fire bore a substantial relationship to maritime activity because it stemmed from the maintenance of a vessel in a marina located on a navigable waterway, which is a part of traditional maritime activity. In his opinion concurring in the judgment, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the majority’s test is unnecessary because it merely proves that district courts have jurisdiction over all tort cases involving vessels in navigable waterways. He wrote that the use of such a test only adds confusion to an otherwise-settled area of law. Justice Byron R. White joined in the concurring opinion.