907 F.3d 1122
9th Cir.2018Background
- Plaintiff Shannon Adamson, a crew member on an AMHS ferry, was seriously injured when a permanently installed passenger ramp at the Port of Bellingham Cruise Terminal collapsed while she was operating it.
- The ramp is a built-in, shore-side structure: integrated into the terminal building, extends ~75 feet over the dock, raises/lowers by cables and pins, and is not readily removable.
- Adamson sued the Port in federal court (diversity), alleging negligence under maritime law; the Port pleaded that AMHS crew negligence contributed.
- The district court granted partial summary judgment holding maritime law did not apply; the case proceeded under Washington law and a jury found the Port liable.
- Adamson cross-appealed the maritime-law ruling; the Ninth Circuit reviews whether admiralty/AEA jurisdiction applies given the ramp’s character and causation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ramp incident occurred on navigable water (locality/gangplank rule) | Ramp is analogous to a gangplank/gangway and thus within maritime jurisdiction | Ramp is a permanent shore-based structure (extension of land), not a gangplank | Held: Ramp is a permanent land-based facility, not a gangplank; locality test fails for admiralty |
| Whether the Admiralty Extension Act (AEA) applies because ship personnel negligence contributed | Even if ramp is land-based, AEA applies because AMHS crew negligence caused the injury (relying on Gutierrez/Gebhard) | AEA applies only where injury was caused by a vessel or its appurtenance; land-based ramp collapse not caused by a vessel/appurtenance | Held: AEA does not apply; injury not caused by a vessel or its appurtenance per Victory Carriers/Grubart line |
| Whether a per se rule applies making any access equipment a vessel appurtenance | Any equipment providing ingress/egress is an appurtenance subject to admiralty (First Circuit approach) | No per se rule; must evaluate permanence, attachment to shore, movability; permanent shore structures remain land | Held: Rejected per se rule; apply case-by-case test—permanent, affixed structures treated as land |
| Whether prior doctrines (Gutierrez/Gebhard) require AEA coverage when ship personnel are alleged negligent | Gutierrez/Gebhard support AEA when ship-related conduct causes onshore injuries | Victory Carriers and Grubart narrow Gutierrez; AEA requires that injury be caused by a vessel or its appurtenance | Held: Victory Carriers/Grubart control; Gutierrez limited—AEA does not extend to pier-based equipment injuries unless caused by vessel/appurtenance |
Key Cases Cited
- Victory Carriers, Inc. v. Law, 404 U.S. 202 (controls limit on AEA; pier/dock incidents by shore equipment fall outside AEA)
- The Admiral Peoples, 295 U.S. 649 (established gangplank-as-part-of-vessel rule)
- Gutierrez v. Waterman S.S. Corp., 373 U.S. 206 (held AEA could apply when ship appurtenance caused ashore injury; later narrowed)
- Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527 (proximate-cause standard for AEA; treats appurtenances as part of vessel)
- Parker v. S. La. Contractors, Inc., 537 F.2d 113 (5th Cir.) (permanent shore ramp is not a vessel appurtenance)
- Romero Reyes v. Marine Enters., Inc., 494 F.2d 866 (1st Cir.) (advocated per se rule treating ingress/egress equipment as appurtenance)
- Scheuring v. Traylor Bros., Inc., 476 F.3d 781 (9th Cir.) (case-by-case approach; disagreed with First Circuit per se rule)
- Gebhard v. S.S. Hawaiian Legislator, 425 F.2d 1303 (9th Cir.) (applied Gutierrez pre-Victory Carriers; later limited by Victory Carriers)
- Nacirema Operating Co. v. Johnson, 396 U.S. 212 (refused admiralty jurisdiction for pier-based crane injuries)