In the latest Weekly Wright Report:

Remember the “Dali”

By Louis J. Kozlakowski and Andrew M. Glick

The MV Dali departed Baltimore’s port early on March 26, 2024 with a cargo destined for Sri Lanka. Before reaching open water, it lost power and struck the Francis Scott Key Bridge. The main spans of the bridge collapsed as the Key Bridge was completed in 1972 before the introduction of redundant support structures. Faced with significant claims, the owners of the Dali filed an action in federal court seeking to exonerate them from or to limit their liability.

So, what does the catastrophic incident involving a nearly 1,000-foot container ship like the Dali have to do with recreational boating?

The maritime law of the United States is not limited to maritime commerce of transporting cargoes and passengers over navigable waters. Admiralty law may also be applied to incidents involving recreational and pleasure boating.

In order to invoke federal admiralty jurisdiction, the test is twofold. First, the alleged wrong must occur on a navigable waterway. Second the wrong must bear a significant relationship to traditional maritime activity.

The Chesapeake Bay is a navigable waterway of the United States. But what about its tributaries? In a recent Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision, the Court in Balt. Gas & Elec. Company v. Coastline Comm. Contracting, Inc., et al. 107 F. 4^th 264 (4^th Cir. 2024) held that Eli Cove, which flows into Stoney Creek in Anne Arundel County, was navigable. The Court found that one could push off from Eli Cove and travel uninterrupted to the Chesapeake Bay to reach Virginia and on to the Atlantic Ocean. As courts have repeatedly held, navigability does not turn on the current use of a waterway or the depth of the waters. Rather, navigability depends on whether the waters are capable of commercial navigation.

What is a significant relationship to traditional maritime activity? The federal courts look to the “general features” of the incident to determine whether there is a connection to maritime activity.  The need for uniform rules of maritime conduct and liability is not limited to navigation. It also extends to other activities traditionally undertaken by vessels. There are cases which applied maritime law to allegations of the failure of the boat operator for improper ingress and egress; where a jet skier was killed after striking another vessel; where a fire occurred on a vessel docked at a marina; and where a woman dove from a pleasure boat in an unauthorized place resulting in injury.

Bottom line, admiralty law provides options and advantages for maritime accidents which are different than land-based torts. For instance, the vessel owner might be able to limit liability under the Limitation of Liability Act of 1851, or an injured party could avoid contributory negligence barring their recovery as maritime law applies comparative negligence, where each party’s liability is assigned a percentage of the damages.

Remember the “Dali” when going out on your boat. You might be entering admiralty law waters even though you’re on a recreational vessel and what you’re doing is not related to commerce. If you have any questions, please contact Louis J. Kozlakowski at 410-659-1314/lkozlakowski@wcslaw.com  or Andrew Glick at 410-659-1311/aglick@wcslaw.com.