View order here.
The petitioner argued the court’s admiralty jurisdiction applied due to the vessel’s position in the facility’s travel lift, its potential for easy return to navigation, the assumed disruption to maritime commerce, and a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity, given the vessel’s alleged maintenance status at the time of the incident. However, the court ruled that both the locality and nexus tests for admiralty jurisdiction were not satisfied.
The court found that the vessel had been brought to the facility for a specific purpose, namely a bottom paint job with an anticipated duration of 3-4 days. Importantly, both parties shared the understanding that the vessel would remain out of the water until the completion of the paint job. Based on the vessel’s position over land and its withdrawal from navigation, the court concluded that there was minimal threat to maritime commerce. Accordingly, the court dismissed the limitation action, declaring a lack of admiralty jurisdiction over the petitioner’s claims.
Arising from injury involving a crewmember of a 46’ Grand Banks vessel, the case involves the individual’s fall from the forks of a forklift while being lowered from the stern of the vessel. The incident occurred as the vessel was positioned on the slings of the travel lift over land at a boat repair facility located along the Dania Cutoff, approximately 10-15 feet from the water. Seeking exoneration from and limitation of liability for any damages arising from the incident, the vessel owner initiated the limitation action.
Jerry Hamilton and Rodrigo Palomino handled this matter on behalf of HM&B.