There Is Another: Admiralty Jurisdiction And Jury Trials Under 28 U.S.C. ' 1873

• Jurisdiction: United States,Federal
• Law Firm: Eckland & Blando
• Subject Matter: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Transport, Marine/ Shipping, Trials & Appeals & Compensation
• Author: Mr Vince C. Reuter
• Published date: 31 March 2023

An accepted rule in admiralty is that jury trials are the exception.¹ The most notable exceptions being cases brought through the Jones Act, or a plaintiff invoking the Savings to Suitors Clause. But a rare (and quite narrow) third exception also exists. And it's of particular importance in the Midwest. Under 28 U.S.C. ' 1873 (the "Great Lakes Act"), claimants may be entitled to a jury for certain incidents arising on (or sufficiently connected to) the Great Lakes, when the exact same incident would fall under ordinary rules for admiralty in other bodies of water. To be frank, it's unclear why this distinction exists'why claimants operating on the Great Lakes deserve more rights than those on the oceans. But the law's the law. It could also matter to your client.

The history behind bench trials in admiralty is far reaching. Maritime law, like much of American common law, evolved from British legal traditions. In the early American colonies, maritime issues were decided by English admiralty courts, which operated independently from the courts of law and equity. The U.S. Constitution then explicitly recognized admiralty law, providing in Article III federal jurisdiction over "all Cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction."² But with this history, the Supreme Court long ago held that, because the Seventh Amendment applies to suits "at common law," a distinct class from suits "in admiralty,"³ the Constitution neither mandates nor forbids a jury trial in admiralty jurisdiction. In turn, while claimants have no constitutional right to a jury in a suit brought within admiralty jurisdiction, Congress may expressly authorize such a jury trial.⁴

As mentioned, Congress has authorized a jury trial in three situations: (1) claims under the Jones Act, (2), more generally, claims validly brought through the Savings to Suitors Clause, and (3), as discussed in this article, claims under 28 U.S.C. ' 1873 (the "Great Lakes Act"). The first two are ubiquitous to many maritime attorneys. They provide the backdrop to a variety of maritime disputes in state and federal court. But the third is quite the opposite. Either because it is unnecessary or unknown, there are relatively few decisions addressing the Great Lakes Act.

A right to a jury under the Great Lakes Act requires four specific facts. First, the claim must involve a vessel of twenty tons or more; second, the vessel must be enrolled and licensed for coasting trade; third, the vessel must be involved in interstate...