Organizing Marine Casualty Investigations: A “Wicked Problem” for Maritime Regulators

Technological advances in the maritime industry challenge governments’ abilities to regulate marine safety in protection of those who make a living exposed to the perils of the sea. Mobile Offshore Drilling Units exploit natural resources farther and farther from shore. Liquefied natural gas-propelled vessels under construction upend traditional safety inspector training programs. Meanwhile, Arctic drilling […]

Sad News for the TMLJ Community

Dear Tulane Maritime Law Journal Community,   The Tulane Maritime Law Journal is saddened to learn of the loss of one of our founding members, Mr. Robert B. Fisher, Jr., who passed away on Monday, April 25.  On behalf of the current Journal membership and the greater Journal community, we wish to extend our condolences […]

holland-oil-rig-in-rotterdam-computer-hd-117410

Plugging the Leaks: The Fifth Circuit Expands and Clarifies the Scope of the Bright-Line Robbins Dry Dock Rule in In re Deepwater Horizon

The Tulane Maritime Law Journal is proud to present another installment in a series of forthcoming posts concerning recent developments in admiralty and maritime law written by members of the Tulane Maritime Law Journal. *This post has not undergone our full editorial process. By: David Bury Plugging the Leaks: The Fifth Circuit Expands and Clarifies the […]

Volume 39, Issue 1 Case Note Presentations [VIDEO]

Presented by the ABA TIPS Admiralty & Maritime Law Committee. Graciously hosted by Liskow & Lewis. Featuring: Bryan J. Kitz — Introductory Remarks Taylor Coley — Brokers and Buyers Beware: Underwriters are Nickel and Dimed by Strict Interpretation of Language in Excess and Umbrella Policies of Offshore Energy Companies Matthew Drenan — The Ninth Circuit Writes an […]

TMLJ ABA Spring Case Note Presentation

Issue 40, Volume 2 Comment Presentations

Please join us for a presentation of selected works from Volume 40 of the Tulane Maritime Law Journal. This event is being graciously hosted by Liskow & Lewis and is being presented by the Tulane Maritime Law Journal in conjunction with the Admiralty & Maritime Law Committee, Tort Trial and Insurance Practice Section of the American […]

Screen Shot 2014-04-18 at 2.25.47 PM

Garanti Finansal Kiralama A.S. V. Aqua Marine & Trading Inc.

The Tulane Maritime Law Journal is proud to present the second installment in a series of forthcoming posts concerning recent developments in admiralty and maritime law written by members of the Tulane Maritime Law Journal. *This post has not undergone our full editorial process. By:  Brooke Bacuetes PROMOTING JUDICIAL EFFICIENCY:  THE SECOND CIRCUIT’S EXPANSION OF […]

Beware! Defective Appurtenances: A Discussion of the “Substantial Relationship” Requirement for Invoking Admiralty Jurisdiction in the Products Liability Context

Admiralty jurisdiction has long posed a formidable opponent to those seeking to understand its subtleties. Fortunately, perhaps, for the maritime bar, substantial issues yet remain around its murky edges that require further discourse. The determination whether a products liability claim falls within admiralty jurisdiction can, at times, lead one into uncharted waters. This Comment will attempt to shed some light into the murky corners of admiralty jurisdiction’s reach so that those far wiser may choose an enlightened path toward the smooth sailing of logical, established precedent.

To accomplish this goal, this Comment will first briefly discuss the adoption of products liability into admiralty jurisdiction. This discussion will be followed by an in-depth analysis of the Supreme Court of the United States’ formulation of admiralty jurisdiction in the tort context, which is intended to give the reader a historical lens through which to view the current approaches. Next, this Comment will highlight the three approaches used by courts today in resolving whether a products liability claim satisfies the “substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity” component of the admiralty jurisdiction test.