When is a floating structure a vessel?

[Rum_Pirate]

1. Floating Structure in Florida--Is it a Vessel?

Michael McDaniel, writing in the February edition of his CargoLaw Zine, reports on the case of Lozman v. The City of Riviera Beach, Florida before the U.S. Supreme Court where Certiorari was granted on 21st February,. 2012.
Case #11-626 - 649 F.3d 1259 (11th Cir. 2011)
He writes that the case turns on Admiralty - Whether a floating structure that is indefinitely moored, receives power and other utilities from shore and is not intended to be used in maritime transportation or commerce constitutes a "vessel" under 1 U.S.C. § 3, thus triggering federal maritime jurisdiction.

Lozman had his floating home moored to a dock located in the City of Riviera Beach, and signed a lease with the city to remain there indefinitely.
The City subsequently instituted an in rem proceeding against Defendant Unnamed Gray, Two-Story Vessel Approximately 57 Feet in Length ("Defendant") on two counts.
The first count was for the tort of trespass alleging the Defendant had remained at the City marina after the City explicitly revoked its consent.
The second count was to initiate foreclosure of a maritime lien for unpaid dockage provided to Defendant.
The district court concluded it had admiralty jurisdiction over the Defendant because the Defendant was a "vessel" under 1 U.S.C. §3.
It then granted a warrant for the arrest of Defendant in connection with the lien sought by the City.
U.S. Marshals arrested the Defendant and towed it to Miami, Florida.
Lozman filed an emergency motion to dismiss the complaint and return his residence to the city marina.
The district court denied the motion and granted the city's partial summary judgment on its trespass claim.
After a bench trial, the district court determined the trespass gave rise to nominal damages of US$1 and the Defendant owed the City approximately US$3,000 under the maritime lien.

On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court explaining its binding precedent mandated Defendant is a "vessel."
Lozman filed a petition for a writ of certiorari and the Supreme Court granted review to resolve differences in opinion on this issue among the Eleventh Circuit and the Fifth and Seventh Circuits.

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide this dispute in the Oct. 2012 session.

Read the details of this dispute at:-

http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/201010695.pdf

And your view is?

 

[Coaster]

And your view is?

Not a vessel.

To me a vessel is a boat or boat-like device intended to move through the water from place to place.

 

[Frankie-H]

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Vessel

I think used for navigation is the key. No not a vessel.

 

[Kukri]

See the judgements of Dr Lushington in "A raft of Timber" (not a vessel) and "The Gas Float Whitton" (not a vessel) and see also the Maritime Conventions Act (any description of vessel used in navigation not propelled by oars).

Not used in navigation; not a vessel.

 

[Rum_Pirate]

I seem to recall that one court in UK ruled that a 'jet ski' or similar (private watercraft) was not a vessel subject to the Navigation Act.

Can anyone shed more light on this?

 

[Boomshanka]

A jet ski was ruled as being a 'ship' I think

http://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/2006/issue2/grant2.html

 

[DanTribe]

I seem to recall that one court in UK ruled that a 'jet ski' or similar (private watercraft) was not a vessel subject to the Navigation Act.

Can anyone shed more light on this?

I think the learned judgement was that a jet ski was not a vessel because it didn't undertake voyages between one point and another, but always returned to the same location.
I think that sanity soon over ruled that judgement.