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...