With all the political/constitutional issues that have been in the news lately, I haven’t been able to discuss some interesting U.S. Supreme Court rulings that have some impact on the people here in Wahkiakum County, Washington. Seeing as how we live next to the mighty Columbia River and there are residents that have floating homes here, I think it’s time I discussed one of my favorite topics in law school: maritime law.
First a little background that helps explain why this matters. Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution established the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). The founding fathers believed that the U.S. Government needed a court where issues could be brought that might not get a fair hearing in a state court. Such situations might occur when one state sued another or citizens from different states sued each other. Because one citizen might have an unfair home court advantage the founders figured they should have an impartial “federal court” to hear their grievances.
Article 3. Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution gives SCOTUS original jurisdiction for several types of cases. One of them is jurisdiction over Admiralty (maritime) law. This means that if a court action arises from something that happened on a boat or ship, the federal courts have jurisdiction over it. Unlike an automobile crash that would be brought in the Superior Court in the county, a maritime claim can be moved by a party to federal court where different federal rules apply.
Unlike diversity cases (one citizen from one state sues another citizen from another state) where the federal court must apply state law under the Erie Doctrine (I will explain this in a future post), maritime law is unusual because it requires the case to use specific federal civil procedure rules. In fact, in the rare cases that a maritime case is heard in a state court, the state judge is required to use the federal rules (reverse Erie Doctrine.)
I realize this is technical and probably confusing and you are scratching your head and wondering why any of this is important. Bottom line, if you have injuries while on a navigable body of water (like the Columbia River) you are more likely to end up in federal court than your local court. This is the difference between facing a local Wahkiakum County jury versus a federal jury in Tacoma, WA or Portland, OR.
To add another weird wrinkle you may not even be entitled to a jury of your peers in federal maritime court. The seventh amendment of the Bill of Rights guaranties the parties in cases of civil law a right to a jury to hear their case. Maritime court, however, is considered a court of equity so there is no guarantee you won’t have a bench trial where a judge decides your case and not a jury of your peers. Weird huh?
So why else is maritime law interesting? Well, anything that happens with a boat or ship including: contracts for sale of said ship, crewman injured on a U.S. registered ship or fishing vessel (Jones Act), injuries to dock workers unloading a ship (longshore and harbor workers compensation act), merchants insuring cargoes carried by ships, salvage rules, shipwrecks, marine oil spills…….all of these are the original jurisdiction of federal maritime courts.
So now that you have some understanding of maritime law, lets talk about the recent SCOTUS case of Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida. This case is so recent that it doesn’t even have a citation number selected yet (known as a slip case.)
This case involved Mr. Lozman who lived in a floating home in the Riviera Beach city marina. After upsetting city officials by opposing a marina redevelopment plan, the city apparently retaliated by assessing fines. When Mr. Lozman refused to pay them, the city placed a lien on his floating home and took him to federal maritime court. There, without a jury, the court found for the city and Mr. Lozman’s floating home was auctioned. Here is the really telling part though. The city bid on the home and when they won the bid, they destroyed the floating home so that no one could oppose their redevelopment plan.
So a homeless Mr. Lozman filed an appeal arguing that the case should not have been in maritime court because his floating home did not meet the definition of “vessel”. The case worked its way through to the SCOTUS which rendered its decision just a few weeks ago.
The opinion, written by Justice Breyer, ruled that Mr Lozman’s floating home did not constitute a vessel and therefore the original maritime court erred when it awarded the lien to the city. From a maritime lawyer’s standpoint this case is amazing. There have been decades of settled law on what kinds of “vessels” meet the maritime definition and this makes a dramatic change. (Proves that a clever lawyer can sometimes get a result that no one expected.)
Prior to this case, a vessel in commerce was defined as an artificial contrivance which floats, was able to move under its own power or be towed from place to place, and could incidentally carry objects such as people or cargo. Mr. Lorenzo’s floating home floated, carried him and his belongings, and had been towed several times before ending up at the Riviera Beach marina. Mr. Lozman’s attorney argued that because the house was moored and connected to utilities such as power and sewer it no longer was a vessel and therefore not covered by maritime law.
Amazingly, the majority of the Supreme Court agreed. The court created a new standard that is very subjective. While agreeing that a log floating in the river isn’t a vessel, (three men in a tub with an oar might be though.) The court adopted a reasonable observer standard where a court would have to ask what a reasonable person would think if presented with the facts. Lawyers love the reasonable observer standard because they get to argue about what is reasonable. I love subjective standards.
So to answer the original question; a houseboat is a boat, a floating boat house is not a boat, and a floating house is not a boat or a house (just ask a bank or insurance company). So do you understand now? No? Good, neither do I, but it gives us attorneys something to argue about in court. Thank you SCOTUS for more billable hours! One thing is obvious. When the SCOTUS sees an injustice caused by how settled law is applied, they are often willing to change the law to avoid future injustice.
Perhaps that is the most important lesson from this case that should be taken to heart by government officials. This case was precipitated by the City of Riviera Beach being spiteful because a citizen was wasn’t letting them have their way. Buying and destroying Mr. Lozman’s home just appears vindictive to most people and a jury under a regular civil trial may see the same thing.
After the SCOTUS ruling Mr. Lozman was quoted as saying he was considering a civil suit for his destroyed home…this time not in maritime court. Perhaps the City of Riviera Beach is going to find out in a very expensive way that you can can be up a creek without a paddle and not be in maritime court.