In Re the Complaint of Christopher Columbus, LLC
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 18468
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Christopher Columbus, LLC owns and operates the passenger vessel Ben Franklin Yacht, which embarks/docks at Pier 24 on the Delaware River and carries paying passengers.
- On May 3, 2013, an altercation/assault among cruise passengers occurred while the vessel was aboard and in the process of berthing; claimants alleged injuries both aboard the vessel and in the adjacent parking lot.
- Bocchino sued in Pennsylvania state court alleging negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, assault, and punitive damages; Christopher Columbus filed a federal limitation of liability action under the Limitation of Liability Act.
- After summary-judgment briefing, the district court sua sponte questioned admiralty jurisdiction and dismissed the limitation action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The Third Circuit reviews jurisdiction de novo, treated the district court’s inquiry as a factual attack, and examined the summary-judgment record to decide whether admiralty jurisdiction exists.
- The Third Circuit held the incident is best characterized as “an altercation between passengers on a boat in the process of docking,” and concluded that such an incident has more than a fanciful potential to disrupt maritime commerce, so admiralty jurisdiction applies; the dismissal was vacated and the case remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal admiralty jurisdiction exists over the torts arising from the passenger altercation during docking | Bocchino: the vessel was in an isolated finger-pier location; the incident could not disrupt maritime commerce, so admiralty jurisdiction is lacking | Christopher Columbus: the fight occurred on navigable water during docking and could distract crew or cause collision/damage, so admiralty jurisdiction exists | Held: Admiralty jurisdiction exists — location test met and the incident (passenger altercation while docking) could plausibly disrupt maritime commerce, satisfying the Grubart connection test |
Key Cases Cited
- Sisson v. Ruby, 497 U.S. 358 (1990) (framework for assessing whether a tort has potential to disrupt maritime commerce)
- Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527 (1995) (two-part connection test for maritime tort jurisdiction: potential to disrupt commerce and substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity)
- Hargus v. Ferocious & Impetuous, LLC, 840 F.3d 133 (3d Cir. 2016) (Third Circuit application of Grubart/Sisson factors and emphasis on protecting maritime commerce)
- Tandon v. Captain’s Cove Marina of Bridgeport, Inc., 752 F.3d 239 (2d Cir. 2014) (distinguishing fights on docks from fights on vessels as less likely to implicate maritime jurisdiction)
- Neely v. Club Med Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 63 F.3d 166 (3d Cir. 1995) (example of describing the general features of an incident for jurisdictional analysis)