framing SIAA inquiry in two parts: first, whether the vessel is owned by United States or an agent, and second, whether the claim stated is a “traditional admiralty claim”
How later courts described this case
- framing SIAA inquiry in two parts: first, whether the vessel is owned by United States or an agent, and second, whether the claim stated is a “traditional admiralty claim”
- section 742 merely provides a “jurisdictional hook” on which to hang a claim against the government
- no SIAA claim could be maintained against the United States where the United States did not have operational control of the vessel on which the injury occurred
- “[A] time charterer ... assumes no liability for ... unseaworthiness of the vessel absent a showing that the parties to the charter intended otherwise.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
GEE, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and, in part, dissenting:
I concur in parts I-IV(A) of the majority opinion. Under the facts of this case and established principles of maritime law, however, it seems to me patent that Ballard satisfied both the “jurisdictional hook” and traditional admiralty claim tests required for suit under the Suits in Admiralty Act. I therefore dissent from the judgment of the Court.
The Suits in Admiralty Act, 46 U.S.C. App. § 741 et seq., was amended in 1960 to eliminate uncertainty as to who was ultimately responsible for wrongful acts of maritime agents of the United States. The relevant portions of the act provide:
Section 741:
Exemption of United States Vessels and Cargoes from arrest or seizure.
No vessel owned by the United States ... or in the possession of the United States ... or operated by or for the United States ... shall ... be subject to arrest or seizure by judicial process ... (emphasis added).
Section 742:
Libel in personam.
In cases where if such vessel were privately owned or operated ... or if a private person or property were involved, a proceeding in admiralty could be maintained, any appropriate non-jury proceeding in personam may be brought against the United States ...
Section 745:
Causes of action for which suit may be brought ...
Suit as authorized by this chapter may be brought only within two years after the cause of action arises ... where a remedy is provided by this chapter it shall hereafter be exclusive of any action by reason of the same subject matter against the agent or employee of the United States ... whose acts or Omissions gave rise to the claim ...
The majority notes that this Act applies to vessels “operated for” the United States as well as those “owned by” or “operated by” the United States. The majority also refers to our opinion in Trautman v. Buck Steber, Inc., 693 F.2d 440 (5th Cir.1982) in which we held that:
... something closer to a time charter when the Government directs the vessel’s overall functions even though the owner may control the operation of the vessel’s personnel and equipment rather than a single purpose contract entered into with an independent contractor would be required to make the vessel “operated for the United States.” Id. at 444, citing J. W. Petersen Coal and Oil Co. v. United States, 323 F.Supp. 1198, 1205-06 (N.D.I11.1970) (emphasis added).
Nonetheless, the majority goes on to conclude that the Suits in Admiralty Act does not apply to time-charters in which the government directs the employment of the *1064 vessel but the owner retains operational control over it.
In reaching this conclusion the majority observes that it is “able to dispose of the current dispute without relying on the ‘operated for’ language of § 741.” The majority concedes that the first clause of § 742, i.e., “if such vessel were privately owned or operated”, can only be understood by reference to § 741. The majority concludes, however, that the “jurisdictional hook” inquiry is satisfied under the third phrase in § 742, eliminating the need to address that inquiry under the first phrase as defined by § 741. To the extent that § 742 and § 741 are consulted solely to determine whether the jurisdictional hook inquiry is satisfied, this analysis is sound. I believe, however, that we must also address §§ 742 and 741 to determine whether the second prong of the majority’s test, the traditional admiralty claim inquiry, has been satisfied.
In concluding that the second prong of the test has not been met the majority notes that under traditional maritime principles a time-charterer “who has no control over the vessel assumes no liability for negligence of the crew or unseaworthiness of the vessel absent a showing that the parties to the charter intended otherwise.” P & E Boat Rental at 647. The majority apparently believes that it is impossible to reconcile this principle with the “operated for” language of § 742. I have no such difficulty.
For good or ill, the Congress can do as it likes with traditional maritime principles in such matters as this, and there is nothing doubtful about the phrase “operated for.” Nor have we held that a time charterer who has no control over a vessel is never liable for a crews’ negligence. Rather, we have held that this rule applies absent a “showing that the parties to the charter intended otherwise.” Id. In a case where the time charterer is the government, that showing is clearly evidenced by the “such vessels” language of § 742. The vessels referred to in this section include all vessels mentioned in § 741, including vessels “operated for” the United States, i.e., vessels over which the government exercises no operational control. Because it seems clear to me that Gulf Central satisfied both the “jurisdictional hook” and “traditional admiralty claim” inquiries, I would hold the exclusivity provision of § 745 applicable to this case. As the majority does not,
I respectfully DISSENT.