Law Office of Scott A. Nelson, P.C.

Many times, whether a matter or claim is "in admiralty"depends on whether it has a sufficient relationship to a "vessel." For instance, an injured seafarer may qualify as a "seaman" only if his employment has the requisite connection with a "vessel." This seaman status allows the seaman to gain the benefits of maintenance and cure, the Jones Act, and the warranty of seaworthiness.

Unfortunately, there is no settles definition of the term vessel. This is frequently a litigated issue on offshore oil rig accidents. There are many types of oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico--fixed rigs, drill ships, SPARS, tension leg platforms, etc. Some may be considered vessels, while some may not.

The United States Congress has defined "vessel" as including "every description of watercraft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water." 1 U.S.C.A. Section 3. The United States Supreme Court has defined vessels as "all navigable structures intended for transportation." Cope v. Vallette Dry-Dock Co. (S.Ct. 1887). It has been said in a great admiralty law treatise that "perhaps the best approximation [of a test] would be to say that the term ‘vessel’ is applied to floating structures capable of transporting something over the water." Grant Gilmore & Charles L. Black, Jr., The Law of Admiralty 33 (2d ed. 1975).

The United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (covering Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi), which gets most of the offshore oil and gas production cases, has generally settled on a test which looks to "the purpose for which the craft is constructed and the business in which it is engaged." Blanchard v. Gas Compressor Servs., Inc. (5^th Cir. 1978). The Fifth Circuit places importance on such circumstances as the manner in which the structure is attached to the shore or the ocean bottom, whether it is registered and equipped for navigation, and the extent to which it is moved. See Ducrepont v. Baton Rouge Marine Enters., Inc. (5^th Cir. 1989).

If you have questions regarding offshore oil rig accidents, please contact Scott Nelson, representing Galveston, Corpus Christi, Brownsville, and the entire coast of Texas in maritime matters.

The United States Constitution provides for federal judicial power extending to "all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction." The federal courts received admiralty jurisdiction from Congress in the Judiciary Act of 1789. In general, admiralty jurisdiction extends to matters occurring on navigable waters involving some aspect of maritime commerce, and contractual matters which directly affect maritime commerce.

"What are navigable waters" becomes the next question. United States admiralty courts recognize jurisdiction over maritime activity occurring on all waters, whether or not connected to the sea, which are used or can be used in interstate or foreign commerce, either usable in their natural state or which can be made navigable with a reasonable expenditure. One often cited definition, as stated by the Supreme Court in The Daniel Ball, 77 U.S. 557, 563 (1871), is that they "form in the ordinary condition by themselves, or by united with other waters, a continued highway over which commerce is or may be carried on with other States or foreign countries, in the customary modes in which such commerce is conducted by water."

A vessel floating on "navigable waters" is treated as a part of "navigable waters" for admiralty jurisdiction. Things like, bridges, ramps, piers, jetties, boat ramps, railways in the sea, and other structures firmly attached to land are considered "extensions of land" and are not considered "navigable waters" for the purposes of admiralty jurisdiction, unless they are used primarily in aid of navigation.

Feel free to contact our lawyer Scott Nelson if you have any questions about admiralty jurisdiction.  Mr. Nelson is a maritime lawyer serving Corpus Christi, Brownsville and all of Texas.

Admiralty, or maritime law, is one of the oldest bodies of law in  the world.  Many experts believe it began in the various countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea.  A special body of law had to be created to deal with the many problems which developed between different countries. 

A typical problem in ancient times went like this:  Ship from Country A has seafarers from Country A and B and Cargo from Countries C and D.  Some of the Cargo is damaged while being offloaded in Country E.  The other Cargo is held by seafarers from Country B who haven't been paid for 6 months.   Five countries are involved with people speaking 4 different languages.  How do we get justice?  Who do we sue?  Where?

These problems led to the establishment of special courts in coastal cities to try to resolve these disputes.  These substantive rules were eventually codified in those courts.  Some of these codes were recognized in other ports.  As these codes developed, there eventually developed a body of general maritime law which was in many ways uniform among the seafaring nations.

This area of law eventually spread to England, which established maritime courts in English ports.  Eventually, these courts were replaced by courts under the jurisdiction of the Lord of the Admiralty.  The British then established in the American colonies vice-admiralty courts to which it granted power over maritime disputes.  This is how maritime law originally got to the United States.