Maritime Law vs Common Law: Distinctions and Implications

What Is Maritime Law?

Maritime law, also referred to as admiralty or admiralty and maritime law, is a distinct body of rules that have evolved over centuries of international commerce among ship-owners. Many of the substantive laws of maritime law derive from European common law, and many others from international treaties.
Maritime law will apply in most instances when an incident occurs at sea, or on navigable bodies of water such as the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Mississippi River, waterways leading to and from Lake Pontchartrain, and ports, such as the Port of New Orleans, Port Fourchon, and the Port of Baton Rouge. Thus, if a collision between two vessels occurs on waters such as these, or if a seaman is injured while on industry vessels, or if a cruise ship passenger is injured, the resulting claims may be governed by maritime law. Because most maritime cases will be filed in federal courts, the rules of federal civil procedure apply, as do the rules of evidence . A factfinder in a maritime case will typically be a jury, however, under certain circumstances the matter may be tried before a judge alone or a "court sitting in admiralty." Venue in sources of injury cases is usually a judicial district in which the wrongful act or omission occurred, or where the defendant resides.
Admiralty or maritime law is one of the oldest bodies of law still in effect today. The field encompasses several different areas of law including maritime contract law, maritime tort law, and maritime worker’s compensation law. Maritime tort law is governed by a special body of maritime law that includes the following types of claims:
Many nations have accepted the Rotterdam Rules, an internationally agreed-upon treaty that governs the sale of goods, and passage on vessels, and applies to ocean carriers, freight forwarders, shippers, and marine insurers.

What Is Common Law?

Common law is a body of law that comes from judicial decisions made by courts. It is based on precendents that are thought to be binding on courts within the jurisdiction or simply persuasive. Common law has its roots in the law that existed in ancient England. The common law of England only applied to England and its colonies and it only became law when a decision in English court was made without governing statutory written law.
Common law’s development in England can be traced back to the Norman Conquest of 1066. The Norman kings decided that only they should make laws. So, separately from the customary English laws that had existed previously, the kings started collecting decisions of their own courts. This method of building on precedent eventually became common law as it is understood today.
Because common law is premised on decision making of judges, it is administered by judicial systems in the jurisdictions where it applies. Courts and judges have to decide on issues based on common law, and they are free to disagree. English law today is made up of statutes passed by Parliament and precedents made by judges.
Common law systems are adversarial systems and have long-standing principles of procedure and rules of evidence. UK law is based on common law and has a common law judicial system. The US judicial system is also based on common law. When common law is referred to in general, people often think of the systems in the UK and the US. Common law systems are typically contrasted with those that use civil law.

The Differences Between Maritime Law and Common Law

One of the most fundamental differences between the two systems is in their jurisdiction. Maritime law is generally limited to matters that occur on water or are otherwise connected to navigable waters in some way. On the other hand, common law is concerned with civil matters and lawsuits that occur on land, not connected to bodies of water or business dealings that cross state lines. Maritime law does have the capacity to extend special jurisdiction to landlocked cases if there is significant connection to the maritime industry, but the rule of thumb is that maritime law is focused almost specifically on matters occurring on the water.
Another major difference is with the regulations that apply to each system. The courts that oversee common law matters are usually referred to as courts of general jurisdiction, as they handle almost every type of civil lawsuit. On the other hand, the courts overseeing maritime law cases are referred to as admiralty courts, and deal only with maritime law cases. Some courts have expanded their jurisdictions to include both common law and maritime law claims by incorporating laws from both of these bodies for certain lawsuits.
Many common law principles do not apply in maritime law. For example, there is no affirmative defense to consider if a plaintiff in a maritime case was negligent, as there is for most personal injury cases. In addition, courts do not usually award punitive damages in maritime law, although they do award compensatory damages. One other notable feature is in the determining of fault related to an accident—according to common law, if a party is responsible for even a percentage of fault, they can be held responsible for 100 percent of the damage. In maritime law, however, the various parties are only held accountable for their percentage of the fault.

Challenges in Jurisdiction

At the intersection of maritime law and common law, however, there can be jurisdictional challenges. While states in the U.S. are generally considered to have broad jurisdiction over matters pertaining to their territory, for international cases, things become more challenging. A federal appellate court in the U.S. recently upheld the dismissal of negligence claims stemming from an international container spill because Los Angeles County had no important interest in the litigation. Jurisdictional challenges can also deter foreign companies from litigation within the United States.
In the case, an S.C. appellate court rejected an attempt by the owner of 13 containers that washed overboard off the coast of South Carolina in the face of Hurricane Joaquin to hold the vessel owners liable. The vessel owners had a clause in their contract of carriage imposing the law of Liberia on the parties. They argued that there was no venue or subject matter jurisdiction because of the choice-of-law provision, resulting in the case being dismissed.
International treaties can also affect maritime cases through the product suit exception. Claimants cannot recover under the exception in cases where strict liability is used. Additionally, in a recent case from Mississippi, the plaintiff could not prove that the Chinese company intended to serve consumers in the state. In states such as Florida, courts have previously dismissed cases without jurisdiction, such as the World Trade Center case. Therefore, if a company made an independently unwilling to market products in Mississippi, the case is likely to be dismissed.
If a party wants to proceed with the case, the Liberian statute of limitations is five years. The choice-of-law provision also stated that the parties would have to submit to jurisdiction in Liberia.
While there are these jurisdictional challenges, some parties prefer to litigate in the U.S. because of a perceived advantage in terms of laws and plaintiff-friendly rules, despite possible deterrents. As a result, maritime law and common law are often intertwined in the U.S.

Implications for Businesses and Individuals

The differences between maritime and common law have significant implications for businesses and individuals, especially for those involved in global trade or conducting activities over water. Depending on the jurisdiction in which a maritime dispute arises, the particular laws and procedures may be more favorable to either the plaintiff or the defendant. This is especially true for those who rely on maritime activities as a vital part of their business, such as maritime attorneys, marine surveyors, ship owners, commercial fishermen, and other waterborne business.
The differences are not just legalistic questions. For instance, forum selection clauses may determine not only the location of a trial, but also the substantive rules that will govern, which may put a party at a significant advantage or disadvantage. Where a company does business over water, therefore, it becomes increasingly important for all persons involved in such agreements to carefully choose the forum and perhaps most significantly , the choice of law. The law of the state or country you think might be favorable to the outcome of the litigation, may actually be subject to substantial change or amendment pending any forthcoming political or judicial changes.
Finally, companies and individuals may wish to consider that they may have to present their dispute to two different tribunals if both common and substantive maritime law are implicated in an action. For example, the claims in a maritime matter may implicate an initial decision and then a choice of subsequent decisions may affect other matters involving the same facts. The first decision will be based on maritime law while the second decision will be decided on the rules of civil procedure and the rules of evidence of the state or federal forum in which such decisions can be made. Careful consideration must be given to the choice of forum, including whether the matter should proceed in federal maritime court or state court.

Case Studies and Legal Implications

To further contextualize the differences in law and application, a pair of modern cases should highlight some distinctions. These cases should also display some similarities, if they are found. The MV "OCEANUS" is a tank ship which sank, on December 7th, in the South China Sea, off Hainan Island. The "OCEANUS" was owned by Knoll Gas Company – Blue Sky Building, Hong Kong. The cargo was oil (fuel) owned by Southern Tugs Corporation. The charter party was made by Southern Tugs for a time period of 6 months but was slated to end approximately a month before the ship sunk. Two days before the ship left, the ship failed a dry-docking test for water leaks at a number of bulkheads. Still, the ship left under the admiralty claim of "Unseaworthiness." The next 4 hours were spent repairing or "tightening" and the owner and crew were confident the repairs had successfully removed leaks. 1.5 hours into the trip, the leaks returned and water again filled the ship. Southern Tugs withdrew from the contract – citing "leaking hull." The shipowners attempted to sue under a "breach of contract" and not the maritime law of "Unseaworthiness." Noting that damages could not be measured on a contractual scale, the case was removed to the admiralty court. The "Seaworthiness" statute of maritime law states that a ship must be fit to travel the sea it was intended for, in this case open international water. The owner must essentially keep the ship in good form. In this case the "OCEANUS" was allowed to leave on a tight schedule and without proper repairs/sniff tests. The ship was later deemed "Unseaworthy" under the statute after sinking for the last time. "Catalina Yachts v. Trimble" involved a "Catalina 36" purchased for $85,500 from the Sun Valley Boat Yard. Upon purchasing two boats, the plaintiff discovered that holes existed two feet below the water line – intended for a set of water intake pipes, not an internal shorts. Catalina was arguably negligent in trusting the manufacturer and repossessing the boats with an obvious hole, yet the "Seabrook Rule" allows the supplier to be negligent without penalty. Recognizing this, the defendant did not disclaim responsibility or liability. Despite the circumstances, the jury held Catalina responsible. In examining the jurisdiction of maritime law, these two cases most clearly show the differences in compensation awarded. In "OCEANUS," damages were awarded based upon a contractual scale (loss of goods) and those goods were returned entirely as they were – essentially undamaged. In "TRIMBLE," the compensatory damages were $64,250 and the punitive damages were $63,750 – despite contracts and agreements that would suit the "Seabrook Rule." The plaintiff was not obligated to return the "damaged" goods, not would he be beholden to a contract of exchange. This difference in compensation for "loss of goods" and "damaged goods" most clearly illustrates the differences in application when looking at the cases.

Future Developments in Maritime and Common Law

Future trends in maritime and common law remain a subject of intense discussion. As both areas of law interact with complex, evolving global challenges, particularly in trade and technology, their development will have increasingly significant implications for international commerce and dispute resolution.
With globalization fostering closer economic ties between nations, maritime law is expected to continue evolving with a focus on international consensus. Treaty-based frameworks like the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) may become more widely adopted to address the complexities of international trade while maintaining the balance sought by divergent legal traditions. Similarly, the ratification of the Rotterdam Rules, which aim to modernize and replace the four key International Maritime Organization (IMO) conventions governing international shipping, may predict an increased harmonization of commercial practices at sea.
The impact of technological advances on these legal frameworks cannot be underestimated. The future of maritime law may see the creation of legal provisions that specifically govern the growing use of technology like electronic bills of lading and automated shipping. This dynamic area of law will also likely need to adapt to the new issues arising from cyber-security concerns. The latter issue also holds potential for maritime law to dovetail more closely with common law in its treatment of data protection and privacy rights.
Technological advancements in shipping may also affect the practice of maritime law. With greater automation and fewer crew members, there may be a shift towards greater liability for vessel owners and less for individual seamen. Removing human error from the equation could lead to the development of new doctrines, or the application of existing ones like strict liability, that place emphasis on the vessel itself rather than the fallibility of its operators.
Where maritime law focuses largely on rights and obligations between private parties, the involvement of governments adds another layer of complexity that may increase with the rise of protectionist legislation . Changes in policy may pose challenges for the harmonization of legal systems in international commercial law – be it contract formation and breach or damages and remedies – if countries show a stronger preference for domestic over foreign interests. Restrictive trade laws may also create tension for maritime law if special legal protections for vulnerable shipping workers or communities are created pre-emptively to address anticipated changes in employment conditions.
Globalization has forged the interconnectedness of maritime law and foreign investment policy, as evidenced by the inclusion of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms in trade agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). In the future, ISDS may take on a more prominent role in compensating investors for any adverse treatment that occurs in the realm of investment. More countries may also sign bilateral investment treaties (BITs) or ratify the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT), which includes a robust arbitration system for energy investments.
From the perspective of common law, issues such as anti-corruption are poised to undergo significant development. Expanding legal frameworks to stem bribery and corruption may affect common law jurisdictions in their implementation of new rules of evidence and disclosure in criminal trials. The implementation of such measures, if they materialize, could alter the interplay between judge and jury.
In many common law jurisdictions, adverse cost orders for losing parties are an increasingly prevalent trend, especially when frivolous litigation is involved. Litigation funding could increase to compensate the high costs of litigation and adverse costs that may be ordered against the losing party. At the same time, where a wide-base tax is imposed on corporate dividends or capital gains, corporations may now have an incentive to finance litigation without external funding. In the alternative, expanding specialization in the bar could, in conjunction with advances in technology, reduce the need for litigation evidence – as opposed to "observational evidence" – driving down the costs of litigation.