Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6

Admiralty 03.


04/03/2010 15:02:00

[student question about caviat in some case.(maybe relisten) Rule says that if a state has an attachment process can use the attachment process even though the underlying claim is a maritime claim. this is an alternative to Rule B. Why do this? State attachment procedures are cheaper than federalstate law might be more favorable. LA has its own attachment procedure that has been used. [Student question about overstreet caseskipping] Maritime Liens Debates about the origins of liens A maritime lien is a unique thing; nothing in common with common-law land-based lien Look on p. 266, note 2 o Read aloud o This is what we are talking about in the previous chapter; that many countries will allow you to arrest a vessel, but the arrest action is more like what we call an attachment (based on personally liability of the owner rather than theliabiltiy of the vessel itself) o Saw that in case where there was an arrest in Netherlands and someone filed arrest in US.ct found that what was happening in Netherlands was really an attachment proceeding in US terms o Prof points out that mere arrest doenst confer jurisdiction in other countires; arrest is instead a conservatory procedure (for securing claim should you ultimately succeed on claim) Brief mention of conventions adopted by other countriesUS will never adopt because of the interests at stake To what does the lien attach? o Lien requires a connection to property o In 99% of cases, vessels are the object of maritime liens o So the question becomes, what is a vessel? K to construct a vessel or supply materials to construct vessel are non-maritime and do not create maritime liens Vessel definition (in last notes) Component parts

See notes from 03.02 Permanently attached to vessel; permanent improvements There has to be a physical relationship between a compoenent part and the vessel and the relationship must be one of relative permancenc (ie. Removal wil be difficult, expense, and have big impact on use of vessel) Accessories Put on vessel but not permanent connection Eg shortwave battery operated vessel.not attached but it is important and useful to vessel an accessory The general rule: If something is a component, whether owned by ship-owner or other party, it is part of ship and is arrested with the ship. W/ respect to accessories, law is less clear. Some authority for saying that if something is an accessory and is owned by another party, then that is not arrested with the vessel. There are very few cases on this and they are somewhat contradictory Real question is what to do You represent someone who produces a product used in maritime industry Your Cl (A) leases the product to The owner of the ship OR enters into a conditional sale of the product with ship-owner As far as ship-owner is concerned, it is the problem of the person who furnished the item (i.e. A) So what should A do to protect its product from getting arrested with vessel? Could say that if sold, then main purchase price becomes immediately duethat would work with a solvent shipowner Two things to worry about: Suppliers relationship with shipowner and also worry about the person arresting the vessel (who isnt privy to any K between A and shipowner)

So need to limit the rights of the person arresting the vessel Record the K with the shipwoner!!!!! Gives notice to the worldwill this actually work? He doesnt know (no caselaw really). But thats his best guess. The more permanent the attachment the less relevant the question becomes because it becomes part of the vessel.

McCarthy v. The Bark Peking (p. 268) Facts: There is a vessel that is used as an exhibit piece in a museum. P was working on the vessel/exhibit piece and was injured. P sued under the longshore and harbor workers compensation act, which allows suits against the owner of the vessel as a third party if there is negligence on the part of the veseel. The D, museum owner, argues that the exhibit/vessel is not a vessel Physical status of vessel at time of incident: In the harbor in water, but iits rudder is weldedessentially in that condition the vessel is not operable. Something would have to be done to make seaworthy Ct: Vessel is pretty broadly defined. (look at defintino in Title 1 of US code). Any contrivance used or capable of being used as a means of transportation..Court: The rudder could be unwelded and restored to usefulness and therefore, this is a vessel Bottomline: Anything being used or capable of being used is a vessel subject to liens Read aloud last paragraph of case on p.270.point is that Force thinks that something is going on here; the Perini case from admiralty I o Perini was a construction worker and his company hired to build somethingin day in question, P was on barge in navigable waters doing construction work to build a sewage plant. P was injured and brought a 905b action against the owner of the barge (allows a maritime worker other than seaman to bring action for negligence). Ct: P is not a maritime worker, he is a construction workerP was fortuitously on vessel and could have just as easily been on land. This is not the law. Goes to S.Ct. who decides that 905b covers anyone working as maritime worker

o Here, the 2nd Cir. Is apparently miffed that SCOTUS revd them on Periniso having a judicial hissy fit. o A discussion about defining a vessel.how would SCOTUS decide to day (come back to 38:22); he thinks that SCOTUS would decide this differently based on the broad test adopted in Stuartvessel doesnt have to be engaged in transporation function at the time of the incident; question is whether it is capable of transporting people or goods over navigable waters The bottomline: SCOTUS would decide.see 38: 30 ish Has bbeen lef up in the air Arques Shipyards v. The S.S. Charles Van Damme (p. 271)

04/03/2010 15:02:00

04/03/2010 15:02:00