A tort falls under federal admiralty jurisdiction only when it clears a two-part test the Supreme Court set out in Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co.: a locality prong, which asks whether the incident happened on navigable water (or was caused on land by a vessel on navigable water), and a connection prong, which asks whether the incident has a potential to disrupt maritime commerce and bears a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity. Fail either prong and the dispute is an ordinary state tort case. Pass both and federal maritime law governs the standards, remedies, and deadlines, which can differ sharply from the state law that would otherwise apply.
The constitutional authority for this federal channel comes from Article III, Section 2, which extends federal judicial power to “all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction.” Congress implemented that grant through 28 U.S.C. § 1333, giving federal district courts original jurisdiction over admiralty and maritime civil cases.1Cornell Law Institute. U.S. Constitution Annotated – Jurisdiction over Categories of Admiralty Cases2Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 USC 1333 – Admiralty, Maritime and Prize Cases The practical reason is commerce: a vessel passing through several states cannot be subject to several different negligence rules without choking trade, so federal maritime law supplies one framework for all navigable waters.
The Locality Prong
The first question is where the tort occurred. Grubart frames it as “whether the tort occurred on navigable water or whether injury suffered on land was caused by a vessel on navigable water.”3Cornell Law School. Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Co.
Navigable water means a waterway used, or capable of being used, as a highway for interstate or foreign commerce. Oceans, major rivers, the Great Lakes, and comparable bodies qualify. An isolated pond does not. A river counts if it is susceptible to commercial use in its natural condition, even if no one is actually using it that way, and seasonal low water or ice does not strip navigability as long as the waterway is usable in normal conditions.
Injuries That Reach the Shore
Admiralty jurisdiction historically stopped at the water’s edge, which created odd results when a vessel plainly caused harm that happened to land on a dock or a bridge. The Admiralty Extension Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30101, closed that gap. Federal admiralty jurisdiction now reaches injuries or property damage caused by a vessel on navigable water, even when the harm is “done or consummated on land.”4Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 46 USC 30101 – Extension of Jurisdiction to Cases of Damage or Injury on Land A ship that strikes a bridge, sends a wake that swamps a pier, or leaks chemicals that contaminate shoreline property all fall within admiralty under this statute. The question shifts from where the harm landed to what caused it.
The Connection Prong
Clearing the locality hurdle is not enough. The incident must also pass a two-part connection test, and both parts must be satisfied.
Potential to Disrupt Maritime Commerce
The first part asks whether the general type of incident could potentially disrupt maritime commerce. The word “potentially” controls the analysis. In Sisson v. Ruby, a fire on a pleasure yacht moored at a marina gave rise to the dispute. No commercial vessels were affected and no cargo was delayed, but the Supreme Court held that none of that mattered. Courts assess the general character of the incident, not the actual fallout in the particular case.5Cornell Law School. Sisson v. Ruby, 497 U.S. 358 (1990) A marina fire could spread to commercial vessels, close a waterway, or trigger an emergency response that blocks shipping. That is enough.
A collision in a shipping channel, a vessel sinking in a harbor approach, or a hazardous spill requiring cleanup each carries the same potential, whether or not actual disruption occurred.
Substantial Relationship to Traditional Maritime Activity
The second part asks whether the activity that produced the tort bears a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity. Courts again look at the general character of the conduct rather than the specifics of the parties involved.
Navigation is the clearest example. Storing and maintaining a vessel at a marina also qualifies, because those activities are integral to using vessels on water.6Cornell Law School. Sisson v. Ruby, 497 U.S. 358 (1990) Commercial fishing, cargo transport, ship repair, and passenger ferry operations fall comfortably on the maritime side. Recreational boating usually does too, since operating a vessel on navigable water has the same general character whether the trip is for business or pleasure.
Activities that fail the test are those with no real connection to vessels or waterborne transit. Swimming off a beach, diving from a pier, or fishing from shore without any vessel involvement happen near water but are not the kind of conduct maritime law developed to regulate. The dividing line is whether the activity depends on a vessel and the navigable water environment in a meaningful way. Fail any piece of the connection test, or the locality prong, and the case leaves admiralty and proceeds in state court under local tort law.7Federal Judicial Center. Jurisdiction: Admiralty and Maritime
What Counts as a Vessel
Both prongs often turn on whether something involved was a vessel. Federal law defines the term broadly as “every description of watercraft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water.”8Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 1 USC 3 – Vessel
The Supreme Court narrowed that reach in Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach. “Capable of being used” refers to practical capability, not theoretical possibility. A reasonable observer, looking at the structure’s physical characteristics and actual activities, must consider it designed to some practical degree for carrying people or things over water.9Justia. Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach A floating structure that lacks an engine, lacks steering, is permanently moored, and has never been used to move across water does not become a vessel just because it floats. Hull design, propulsion, steering, and actual transportation history all weigh in the analysis. The owner’s own view of what the structure is does not matter; the test is objective.
What Changes When Admiralty Jurisdiction Applies
Qualifying as a maritime tort reshapes the case in several ways at once.
Where you can file. Most maritime tort plaintiffs can file in either federal admiralty court or state court. The “saving to suitors” clause in 28 U.S.C. § 1333 preserves “all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled,” which courts have long read as permitting personal claims for money damages to proceed in state court.2Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 USC 1333 – Admiralty, Maritime and Prize Cases The exception is an action against the vessel itself, such as enforcing a maritime lien by seizing a ship, which must stay in federal admiralty.
Whether you get a jury. A case tried on the admiralty side of federal court is decided by a judge. There is no jury right. The same claim filed in state court through the saving to suitors clause can be tried to a jury, which often drives the forum choice. The Jones Act makes the jury right explicit for injured seamen by statute.10Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 46 USC 30104 – Personal Injury to or Death of Seamen
How fault is allocated. Maritime law uses pure comparative fault in personal injury and wrongful death cases. A plaintiff found 40 percent at fault still recovers 60 percent of their damages. The Supreme Court extended proportional fault to property damage in vessel collisions in United States v. Reliable Transfer Co., replacing the older equal-division rule.11Legal Information Institute. United States v. Reliable Transfer Co., Inc.
What damages are available. Punitive damages exist in maritime cases but are limited. In Dutra Group v. Batterton, the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff cannot recover punitive damages on an unseaworthiness claim, reasoning that layering punitives onto a court-created strict-liability doctrine would conflict with the Jones Act’s compensatory framework.12Justia Supreme Court Center. Dutra Group v. Batterton Punitives remain available in some other maritime contexts, including when a vessel owner willfully refuses to pay maintenance and cure owed to an injured seaman.13Justia Supreme Court Center. Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend Vessel owners also have a statutory right to cap total liability for an incident at the value of the vessel and pending freight, provided the owner had no knowledge of or involvement in the conditions that caused the harm. That cap disappears when the owner cannot show freedom from knowledge or fault.
What happens on the high seas. When a wrongful death occurs more than three nautical miles from the U.S. shoreline, the Death on the High Seas Act supplies the exclusive remedy and limits recovery primarily to financial losses like lost income and support.14Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 46 USC 30302 – Liability and Recovery Closer to shore, general maritime law or state law may allow broader non-economic damages. Commercial aviation deaths over water are a carve-out: DOHSA does not apply within 12 nautical miles of shore in those cases.
Criminal exposure. Civil liability is not the only consequence of a fatal maritime incident. Federal criminal law imposes fines and up to ten years in prison for a crew member or vessel owner whose negligence or misconduct destroys a life.15Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 1115 – Misconduct or Neglect of Ship Officers
Deadlines You Cannot Miss
Because jurisdiction determines which deadline governs, getting the two-part analysis right also controls how long a plaintiff has to act. Personal injury or death claims arising from a maritime tort carry a three-year statute of limitations under 46 U.S.C. § 30106.16Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 46 USC 30106 – Time Limit on Bringing Maritime Action for Personal Injury or Death Missing it bars the claim entirely.
Other maritime claims run on tighter clocks. A Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act claim must be filed within one year of the injury or one year after the last compensation payment, whichever is later, with a two-year window from discovery for occupational diseases.17Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 33 USC 913 – Filing of Claims Cargo damage claims under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act must be brought within one year. Deciding whether admiralty applies, and then which specific statute governs, is the step that sets your calendar.