Maritme Law - Definition of Vessel

Status (as of 1/16/13)

In January 2013, the United States Supreme Court ruled by a 7-2 vote that a floating home at a marina in Riviera Beach, Florida is not a “vessel” for purposes of U.S. admiralty law because a reasonable observer would not consider it “designed to a practical degree for carrying people or things over water.” (Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach)

In Lozman, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that the floating home was a vessel under 1 U.S.C. § 3 because it could be towed over water, even though it had no means of propulsion and had left its dock only four times in seven years.  Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the Court’s majority, reversed that ruling, pointing out that the lower court decision would apply federal admiralty law to “a wooden washtub, a plastic dishpan, a swimming platform on pontoons, a large fishing net, a door taken off its hinges, or Pinocchio (when inside the whale).”  Pointing to the statutory requirement that a vessel be “a means of transportation on water,” he emphasized that a “vessel” must be “regularly” used for water transportation, and reaffirmed an earlier decision that a decommissioned ship was not a vessel even though it was towed to and from a pier on a twice-yearly basis.

The dissenting opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, agreed that Lozman’s floating home is not a vessel for admiralty law purposes, but argued that the Court prescribed a too-broad test for what is a vessel.

AGA Position

The ruling in Lozman, is consistent with the position taken by the American Gaming Association (AGA) in a brief amicus curiae filed with the Court in 2012.  The AGA welcomed the Court’s ruling noting that the Court’s decision should limit certain liability of riverboat casino operators.

In its amicus brief, the AGA urged that Lozman’s floating home was not a vessel and that the Court should adopt a practical test for “vessel” status that considers whether a floating structure is actually used for water transportation, not merely whether it is theoretically possible for such a structure to carry a person or item over water (like a wooden washtub or Pinocchio).  The Court’s ruling should help protect riverboat casino operators from unwarranted liability to employees and customers, who will be much less able to sue under federal admiralty law for injuries suffered at the casinos.