Taking a page from my partner and fellow blogger, Robert Thomas, I thought it would be interesting to see what Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's record was at it relates to admiralty or maritime law. My search was hardly comprehensive and was strictly focused at the opinions she expressly authored (no per curiam opinions) while a Circuit Court judge.
In no particular order:
American Stevedoring Limited v. Marinelli (April 26, 2001):This is a case to determine the extent a union official ("shop steward") was in "maritime employment" for the purposes of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 901 et seq). The case was before the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals on appeal from the Benefits Review Board of the Department of Labor. Judge Sotomayor noted that the test for maritime employment was at the company, and not individual employee level. In a footnote, Judge Sotomayor indicated her view of the limits of judicial deference to agency interpretation of law when she questioned the Labor Department's interpretation of a court opinion vs. its organic statutory mandate. She seems to indicate that agency interpretation of case law is not entitled to the same deference as statutes.
Senator Line GMBH & CO v. Sunway Line, Inc. (May 17, 2002): This is a cargo damage case arising from the spontaneous combustion of chemical cargo aboard a ship. At issue was whether strict liability was appropriate for the shipment of inherently dangerous goods when neither shipper nor carrier had knowledge of the nature of the cargo. This question turned on interpretation of the Carriage of Goods at Sea Act, 46 U.S.C. 1304(6)(COGSA). Noting the relation of the domestic law and its genesis in international law, a point some conservative Senators may raise - but silly in light of modern maritime law with its pervasively international flavor, Judge Sotomayor found strict liability to be warranted by the text of COGSA.
Jessica Howard Ltd v. Norfolk Southern Rwailway Co. (January 10, 2003): This is a cargo (underwear) damage case presenting the issue of where should damaged cargoes value be determine - the place of origin or destination. Historically, the destination was used to measure the "actual loss" valuation. The carrier used "circulars" to modify its bills of lading. The court disagreed with the lower court who found that the circulars limited damage to property value at origin. Judge Sotomayor disagreed and found that the circulars did not, as a matter of contract interpretation, act to thwart the law of damages. The law of damages required a trial to determine the facts as to the appropriate measure of the value of the damaged cargo.
Wills v. Amerada Hess Corp. (August 11, 2004): This is a personal injury case involving a seamen who died of cancer complications allegedly caused by exposure to hazardous chemicals while employed on vessels. The seaman's estate argued that the shipowner had to disprove causation, rather than the traditional obligation of any plaintiff to show the defendant's conduct caused plaintiff's damage. The estate argued that an admiralty doctrine called the Pennsylvania rule applied to Jones Act personal injury claims. Per Judge Sotomayor, the rule "shifts the burden of proving causation from plaintiffs to defendants to show not merely that their fault might not have been one of the causes of the injury, or that it probably was not, but that it could not have been." The rule arose in the vessel collision context which Judge Sotomayor concluded made sense. She declined to extend it to a personal injury case where a plaintiff could not establish the necessary causation between defendant's actions and plaintiff's injuries.
Universal Oil LTD v. Allfirst Bank (August 11, 2005): This is a bankruptcy case which presented a clash between bankruptcy law and admiralty as it related to the court's power to extinguish maritime liens. Finding that the lienors had submitted their dispute to the bankruptcy's court's powers, Judge Sotomayor wrote that the bankruptcy court did have the power to extinguish the liens.
Cassidy v. Chertoff (November 29, 2006): This case is a Fourth Amendment challenge to Coast Guard regulations relating to searches of passengers onboard ferries in Lake Champlain. Judge Sotomayor thoroughly analyzed the regulations and the applicable precedent relating to searches and ultimately found the regulations to be permissible under the Fourth Amendment.
Given her background on the Court of Appeals based in New York City, Judge Sotomayor should have a broad understanding of admiralty and maritime law. Because admiralty is still very much common law based, vs. statutory, the Supreme Court sits at the crux of the creation or resolution of this judge-made law.
It seems she has been a fair judge of maritime law, given it's many differences against other legal forums.
Posted by: Louisiana Maritime Lawyers | August 25, 2009 at 12:45 PM