McGuire v. City of New York
Decision Date | 30 March 1961 |
Citation | 192 F. Supp. 866 |
Parties | Mary McGUIRE, Libellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Edwin M. Bourke, New York City, for libellant.
Charles H. Tenney, Corp. Counsel, New York City, for respondent. James W. Fay, New York City, Meyer Weinstein, Brooklyn, N. Y., of counsel.
Resopondent's exception to the libel in this action raises the question as to whether the admiralty jurisdiction of this court extends to injuries suffered by a bather at a public bathing beach in New York City.
The libellant alleges in her libel that the respondent, The City of New York, owned a public bathing beach known as Midland Beach and invited the libellant to enjoy the waters of such beach in return for payment of a stipulated charge. It alleges that while libellant was lawfully in the waters at said public bathing beach she was caused to sustain an injury to her left hand "when it came into contact with a submerged object that protruded from the bottom."
The libel does not allege the citizenship of libellant. If diversity of citizenship were the basis of the action, there is doubt whether the libel could be sustained. However, libellant's proctor has brought the action as one in admiralty, apparently pursuant to the provisions of § 1333 of Title 28 U.S.C., giving the district courts original jurisdiction of "any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction."
The exception to the libel is on the ground that the facts averred in the libel do not constitute a cause of action within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of this court. This, therefore, presents the very clear question as to whether an injury to a bather at a public bathing beach, occasioned by the negligence of the proprietor of the bathing beach, constitutes a cause of action cognizable in admiralty. Midland Beach, where the accident is alleged to have occurred, is on the edge of Staten Island in New York Harbor. The waters adjacent to Midland Beach may be deemed to be navigable waters, although whether they are navigable, in the ordinarily accepted sense of the word, at the point where a person might be swimming, might be questionable.1 However, we need not consider that point. The more important question is whether the libel alleges such matters as to allow the action to be brought in admiralty. Libellant takes the position that any tort which occurs in navigable waters is cognizable in admiralty. The Court is unable to agree with this contention.
The Supreme Court has pointed out that "the precise scope of admiralty jurisdiction is not a matter of obvious principle or of very accurate history." The Blackheath, 1904, 195 U.S. 361, 25 S.Ct. 46, 47, 49 L.Ed. 236. The Court recognized that English and French law was the basis of admiralty jurisdiction.
In the ancient French admiralty court, the maritime nature of a dispute was the test of jurisdiction in both contract and tort cases. See French Maritime Ordinances of 1400, 1517 and 1681, found in Cleirac, Us et Coutumes de la Mer, 191 (1788); 1 Valin, Ordonnance de la Marine, 112, 120, 124, 138, 140, 143 (1776). Like the French courts, the English admiralty exercised jurisdiction over all disputes of a maritime nature. 1 Twiss, Black Book of the Admiralty, 68, 69, 83 (1871). Both courts drew on the laws of Oleron as a basic source. See generally, Note, 25 Harv.L.Rev. 381 (1912).
Just before the turn of the century, an English court considered the issue which is directly put in this case. The Queen v. The Judge of the City of London Court, 1892 1 Q.B. 273. The well-reasoned opinion arrived at the following conclusion:
Id. at 294-295.
Soon thereafter, apparently on the authority of The City of London case, the Ninth Circuit reached a similar conclusion. Campbell v. H. Hackfeld & Co., 9 Cir., 1903, 125 F. 696. The Court stated the question as follows:
"The fundamental principle underlying all cases of tort, as well as contract, is that, to bring a case within the jurisdiction of a court of admiralty, maritime relations of some sort must exist, for the all-sufficient reason that the admiralty does not concern itself with non-maritime affairs. * * *" Id. at page 697.2
After reviewing the cases and studying The City of London, the Court concluded:
* *"Id. at page 700.
See generally, 16 Harv.L.Rev. 210 (1903).
While it has been urged that admiralty has jurisdiction over all torts where the wrong takes place on the high seas or other public navigable waters of the United States, this position has not been adopted either by the text writers or by the courts. The basis for admiralty jurisdiction must be a combination of a maritime wrong and a maritime location.3 A maritime wrong generally has been concluded to be one which in some way is involved with shipping or commerce. The locality test was first laid down in The Plymouth, 1866, 3 Wall. 20, 70 U.S. 20, 18 L.Ed. 125, where the Court said in part:
Today the locality test is well established in the law. Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 1959, 358 U.S. 625, 628, 79 S.Ct. 406, 3 L.Ed.2d 550; Netherlands American Steam Nav. Co. v. Gallagher, 2 Cir., 1922, 282 F. 171. See Forgione v. United States, 3 Cir., 1953, 202 F.2d 249.
The libellant seeks to use the holding in The Plymouth and the other locality cases to support her contention that any tort occurring on navigable waters is a maritime tort and thus properly within admiralty jurisdiction. She seeks, thereby, to use the locality test as a means of extending admiralty jurisdiction. But this argument is taken out of context. The test was developed as a rule of limitation, as a means of limiting the scope of admiralty jurisdiction. This is made very clear by the Court in The Plymouth itself and later noted in The Blackheath, 1904, 195 U.S. 361, 367, 25 S.Ct. 46, 49 L.Ed. 236. See, Note, 25 Harv.L.Rev. 381 (1912). That the locality test initially was and continues to be a rule of exclusion or limitation, is recognized by the Supreme Court. London Guarantee & Accident Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission, 1929, 279 U. S. 109, 123-124, 49 S.Ct. 296, 73 L.Ed. 632. See Note, 18 Harv.L.Rev. 299 (1905).
The broadly stated principle of The Plymouth has not survived the years unsullied. In 1909, Henry Billings Brown said:
Brown, Jurisdiction of the Admiralty in * * *"Cases of Tort, 9 Colum.L.Rev. 1, 8 (1909).
By 1924 the question was still undecided. Hough, Admiralty Jurisdiction— Of Late Years, 37 Harv.L.Rev. 529, 532 (1924). What has been called "Mr. Benedict's celebrated doubt" has continued through the succeeding editions of Benedict on Admiralty.
1 Benedict, op. cit. supra, § 127.
See, Sprague &...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Reed v. United States, Civ. No. F 81-164.
...it was suggested that diving bears no significant relationship to maritime activity. Similarly, swimming, e.g., McGuire v. City of New York, 192 F.Supp. 866 (S.N.Y.1961); Rubin v. Power Authority of New York, 356 F.Supp. 1169 (W.N.Y.1973); and water skiing, e.g., Crosson v. Vance, 484 F.2d ......
-
In re Dearborn Marine Service, Inc.
...v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 431 F.2d 100 (CA5 1970); Chapman v. City of Grosse Pointe Farms, 385 F.2d 962 (CA6 1967); McGuire v. City of New York, 192 F.Supp. 866 (S.D.N.Y.1961). 25Rodrigue must be read against the background of § 1333(a)(2), the section that extends state law to the artificia......
-
Executive Jet Aviation, Inc v. City of Cleveland, Ohio
...Fla.1966). Cf. Weinstein v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 316 F.2d 758 (CA3 1963). 6 In another injured-swimmer case, McGuire v. City of New York, 192 F.Supp. 866, 871—872 (SDNY 1961), the court stated: 'The proper scope of jurisdiction should include all matters relating to the business of the s......
-
Szollosy v. Hyatt Corp.
...similar to those in which a person is injured while diving off a dock, or while swimming at the beach. See, e.g., McGuire v. City of New York, 192 F.Supp. 866 (S.D.N.Y.1961). The defendants/third-party plaintiffs maintain, however, that, especially in light of the need for "uniform rules go......