Navy Admiralty Law Practice - NAVY BMR Navy Wide ... material/14350.pdf · Navy Admiralty Law Practice…

Download Navy Admiralty Law Practice - NAVY BMR Navy Wide ... material/14350.pdf · Navy Admiralty Law Practice…

Post on 03-Jul-2018

212 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

  • DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

    NONRESIDENTTRAININGCOURSE

    Navy Admiralty LawPracticeNAVEDTRA 14350

    Notice: NETPDTC is no longer responsible for the content accuracy of the NRTCs. For content issues, contact the servicing Center of Excellence: Center for Service Support (CSS Athens); (706) 355-7501, Ext. 7642 or DSN: 354-7501, Ext. 7642

  • PREFACEAbout this course:

    This is a self-study course. By studying this course, you can improve your professional/military knowledgeregarding Admiralty Law.

    History of the course:

    Aug 2003: NRTC released.

  • TABLE OF CONTENTS

    TITLE PAGE

    Admiralty Law and Its Application in Navy Admiralty Claims Practice: A Primer ................................................................................................................ 1

    APPENDIX

    I Chapter XII, JAGMAN (Admiralty Claims) ......................................................... AI-1

    ASSIGNMENT QUESTIONS follow Appendix I.

  • ADMIRALTY LAW AND ITS APPLICATION IN NAVYADMIRALTY CLAIMS PRACTICE: A PRIMER

    Reviewed by Naval Reserve Civil Law Support Activity 111

    I. THE ORIGINS AND NATURE OF ADMIRALTY LAW1

    Admiralty law, simply stated, is a tool for resolving the controversies that arise out of maritimedamage. Admiralty law is unlike the law pertaining to property damage and personal injury on landsometimes referred as tort law. Nevertheless, Admiralty law has been with us a long time. It hasits roots in antiquity.

    The most ancient and at the same time the most simple law was the law of the jungle underwhich loss or damage caused by another was simply allowed to lie where it fell. The victimabsorbed a loss without compensation from anyone.

    But mankinds sense of justice was inflamed by the fact that a person damaged without faulthad no recourse by a peaceful means to recover their loss from the ones who did the injury. Ofcourse, the injured party could use self-help by way of revenge but this only added to the sum totalof loss and greatly disturbed the peace of the community.

    Hence, mans progress from a savage to a civilized state has been marked by the development ofrules designed to overcome the law of the jungle. No longer under law does the loss lie where itfalls. The law causes the responsible party, or the party at fault, to make the injured party whole.

    If you willfully or negligently injure your neighbor or damage his/her property and yourneighbor is without fault, the courts will require that you respond in damages so that your neighbormay be made whole once again. The law will not let the loss lie where it fell.

    This concept of the party at fault responding in damages to the party aggrieved is equallyapplicable in admiralty law as it is in the common law. (The term common law is used throughoutthis article to describe the body of law extant in this country exclusive of the admiralty field, adefinition that, though not quite accurate, is reasonably expedient for the purpose here.) However,its implementation in admiralty has differed somewhat from the common law for the followingreasons:

    First, admiralty law is ancient. It has evolved slowly and by minute increment since mankindfirst ventured upon the surface of the sea for travel and trade.

    At one time scholars opined that a Rhodian Code of admiralty law, perhaps dating back to900 B.C., had been promulgated, but this theory has been repudiated largely by the complete

    1 Sections I and II of this course are derived, in large part, from a paper entitled Admiralty Law and ItsRelation to Command at Sea, which was based on a lecture delivered at the Naval War College on 18 May1953 by Rear Admiral Ira H. Nunn, U.S. Navy, who served as Judge Advocate General of the Navy from 1952to 1956. For many years, Admiral Nunns paper, as periodically updated, constituted a portion of the textualmaterial for the Navys Nonresident Training Course (NRTC), Navy Admiralty Law Practice. This courseexpands on the foundation created by Admiral Nunn. Additionally, this edition of the NRTC updates thematerials authored by CDR Kevin P. McMahon, JAGC, USN (Ret.)(Sections I through IX) appearing inprevious editions. This NRTC is intended as an introduction to Admiralty law only. This NRTC does notnecessarily reflect the views of the United States Navy. As with all NRTCs, it should not be cited as authorityin any legal submission.

    1

  • absence of any surviving historical record of such a code.2 However, it is apparent that acustomary maritime practices did evolve and gain general acceptance among Mediterraneanseafarers by the period 500-300 B.C., when Rhodes was the center of seagoing commerce.3 Theearliest surviving reference to a particular Rhodian legal principle dates to the Third Century A.D.,when a Roman lawyer named Paulus wrote five books of Sentences. A division of the second book,titled On the Rhodian Law, states:

    If, for the sake of lightening a ship, a jettison of goods has been made, what has beengiven for all shall be made up by the contribution of all.

    (As you will see, this Rhodian law of jettison is a precursor of the distinctive maritime doctrineof general average, discussed later in this course.) Other references to Rhodian law appear inJustinians Digests, published in 533 A.D., including the rather noteworthy comment attributed toRoman Emperor Antoninus, when petitioned for relief by one whose shipwreck had beenplundered: I am indeed lord of the world, but the law is lord of the sea. This matter must bedecided by the maritime law of the Rhodians . . ..4

    In contrast, the common law of England commenced its development at the time of the Normaninvasion. Therefore, it began to exist, as we know it about the year 1066 A. D.

    Thus, the concepts upon which admiralty laws are based are about 1500 years older than thoseof the common law. Obviously, custom, practice, and statute have modified both systems greatlythroughout the years, and, while there are many similarities, differences still exist.

    In contrast, the common law of England commenced its development at the time of the Normaninvasion. Therefore, it began to exist, as we know it about the year 1066 A. D.

    Thus, the concepts upon which admiralty laws are based are about 1500 years older than thoseof the common law. Obviously, custom, practice, and statute have modified both systems greatlythroughout the years, and, while there are many similarities, differences still exist.

    Second, admiralty law enjoys a universal character among maritime nations. It is apparentfrom the mobile nature of its primary subject matter (ships) that, of necessity, there must exist aworldwide similarity in the application of admiralty law by all of the principal maritime nations.This need for universality influenced the development of admiralty law.

    Admiralty law grew up together with, and in similar fashion to, the ancient law merchant.Early in its evolution, various rules were agreed to by seafarers to facilitate maritime commerce,rules that attained widespread acceptance because of their practicality and, eventually, becameenforced as the law among seafaring communities.5

    The importance of universality was apparent to the framers of the United States Constitution,who extended federal judicial power to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.6

    2 1 Benedict on Admiralty 2-3 (E. Jhirad, A. Sann, B. Chase & M. Chynsky 7th ed. 1985) [hereinaftercited as 1 Benedict].

    3 See N. Healy & D. Sharpe, Cases and Materials on Admiralty 3 (1974) [hereinafter cited as Healy &Sharpe].

    4 1 Benedict, 3; G. Gilmore & C. Black, The Law of Admiralty 1-2 (2d ed. 1975) [hereinafter cited asGilmore & Black].

    5 Gilmore & Black, 1-3; Healy & Sharpe, supra note 3, 1-2, see also Thomas J. Schoenbaum,Admiralty and Maritime Law Ch. III, (3rd ed. 2001)[hereinafter cited as Schoenbaum].

    6 U.S. Const. art. III, 2.

    2

  • The wisdom of providing the federal government with the principal power over maritime commerceshould be apparent; without it, both domestic and foreign shippers would have been subject to variousstates laws, to the probable detriment of the nations developing maritime trade.

    Third, throughout its development, admiralty law deliberately has been treated as a species oflaw separate and distinct from the common law. In England, admiralty courts existed wholly apartfrom the general civil courts that entertained non-admiralty actions at law or equity. There, and inthe United States, judges in admiralty cases applied substantive admiralty law, and would refer tocommon law principles for guidance only when the dispute at hand could not be resolved by theapplication of admiralty statutes and the general maritime law (a broad term that has been used torefer to both the admiralty practices generally accepted among the worlds seafaring nations andthe particular judicially-developed body of admiralty rules enjoying the force of law within aparticular country).

    Further, the admiralty courts used their own set of procedural rules, often differing sharplyfrom the procedures in other civil courts. In the United States, a separate set of Rules for Practice inAdmiralty and Maritime Cases, promulgated by the Supreme Court,7 and under which a UnitedStates District Court would transform itself into a court sitting in admiralty, were in effect untilJuly 1, 1966. On that date, the procedural rules for all civil cases, including those in admiralty, wereunified;8 however, even in this consolidation, certain traditional admiralty practices were retained(for example, unlike the usual civil case, there is no right to a jury trial in an admiralty action unlesssuch a right is specifica