Yamaha Motor Corp. v. Calhoun: An Examination of Jurisidiction, Choice-of-Laws, and Federal Interests in Maritme Law

Authors

B.J. Haeck

Abstract

In Yamaha Motor Corp. v. Calhoun, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that state remedies were still available for non-seamen killed inside of a state's three-mile territorial sea, despite the existence of a general maritime remedy at federal law. This Note argues that the Court failed to consider its traditional tests when confronted with this choice between state and federal maritime law. In so doing, it erred in finding that state law was applicable. The Court's decision also created a conflict between the traditional standard of significant federal interest required in order to confer federal admiralty jurisdiction to tort plaintiffs and the Yamaha Court's rationale that there was not enough of a federal interest to mandate a system of uniform federal remedies. In response to this problem, this Note argues that federal courts' maritime tort jurisdiction be narrowed to assure that when a case is heard at admiralty the requisite federal interests exist

First Page

181

Recommended Citation

B.J. Haeck, Notes and Comments, Yamaha Motor Corp. v. Calhoun: An Examination of Jurisidiction, Choice-of-Laws, and Federal Interests in Maritme Law, 72 Wash. L. Rev. 181 (1997).
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol72/iss1/8