Davis v. City of Jacksonville Beach, Florida

251 F. Supp. 327, 1965 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6928
CourtDistrict Court, M.D. Florida
DecidedDecember 2, 1965
Docket65-15-Adm-J
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 251 F. Supp. 327 (Davis v. City of Jacksonville Beach, Florida) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Davis v. City of Jacksonville Beach, Florida, 251 F. Supp. 327, 1965 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6928 (M.D. Fla. 1965).

Opinion

McRAE, District Judge.

This suit grew out of an accident occurring in the ocean off Jacksonville Beach, Florida, when a surfboard being ridden by respondent Dean Cowan crashed into libelant Roland E. Davis, who was swimming. Each respondent has filed a motion for “judgment on the pleadings,” alleging that this action does not come within the admiralty jurisdiction.

It is not necessary to reach the novel question whether a surfboard is a vessel. Although drawing criticism from the commentators, see, e. g., 1 Benedict, Admiralty 350-51 (6th ed. Knauth 1940); Comment, 64 Colum. L. Rev. 1084, 1091 (1964), the weight of authority in this country holds that any tort whatever, occurring on the high seas or navigable waters, is within the admiralty jurisdiction. See, e. g., Weinstein v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 316 F.2d 758 (3d Cir.), cert, denied, 375 U.S. 940, 84 S.Ct. 343, 11 L.Ed.2d 271 (1963).

Even- if some maritime connection other than locality is required to sustain jurisdiction (and some such relationship appears in practically every case purporting to follow the general rule), it exists in this case. Of course, the present accident produced no direct or indirect influence on shipping and commerce. But a surfboard, by its very nature, operates almost exclusively on the high seas and navigable waters, and, just like a small canoe or raft, potentially can interfere with trade and commerce. For this reason, admiralty should develop the rules of liability relating to a surfboard’s operation.

After due notice and hearing, it is therefore, upon consideration,

Ordered that respondents’ motions for “judgment on the pleadings” are severally denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Craddock v. M/Y The Golden Rule
110 F. Supp. 3d 1267 (S.D. Florida, 2015)
Medina v. Perez
575 F. Supp. 168 (D. Puerto Rico, 1983)
Scholl v. Town of Babylon
95 A.D.2d 475 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
Kennedy Engine Co. v. Dog River Marina & Boatworks, Inc.
432 So. 2d 1214 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1983)
Rubin v. Power Authority of State of New York
356 F. Supp. 1169 (W.D. New York, 1973)
Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland
409 U.S. 249 (Supreme Court, 1972)
Smith v. Guerrant
290 F. Supp. 111 (S.D. Texas, 1968)
Rogers v. M/V RALPH BOLLINGER
279 F. Supp. 92 (E.D. Louisiana, 1968)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
251 F. Supp. 327, 1965 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6928, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-city-of-jacksonville-beach-florida-flmd-1965.