## Facts

- Joseph Makela attended a privately chartered three-hour nighttime cruise on the S.S. *Flamingo* in the Duluth–Superior harbor, advertised as a “booze cruise,” where passengers allegedly drank heavily.
- After the vessel docked, passengers disembarked onto Harbor Drive in Duluth, Minnesota.
- About six minutes after docking, Makela was struck and seriously injured while crossing Harbor Drive by a car driven by another recently disembarked passenger who was allegedly intoxicated.
- Makela notified the vessel operator and owner that a tort claim would be filed; the companies then filed a federal limitation action under the Shipowner’s Limitation of Liability Act seeking to cap liability at the stipulated vessel value of $51,000.
- Makela later sued in Minnesota state court, alleging the excursion companies negligently (1) failed to supervise passengers and allowed illegal intoxication on board and (2) failed to provide a safe means of exit from the vessel.

## Issues

1. Whether federal admiralty jurisdiction existed over the shipowners’ limitation action when the injury occurred on land but was allegedly caused by negligence in operating a passenger vessel on navigable waters, within the Admiralty Extension Act.
2. Whether the alleged shipboard conduct had a sufficient maritime connection to satisfy the “locality plus maritime nexus” requirement for admiralty tort jurisdiction.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal for lack of admiralty jurisdiction and remanded.
- The court held that carrying passengers for hire on navigable waters is a traditional maritime activity and that the alleged duties (supervising passengers and ensuring safe disembarkation) were maritime in nature.
- The Admiralty Extension Act permitted admiralty jurisdiction where the negligent conduct occurred on navigable waters and the injury was consummated on land.
- The court rejected the argument that the land injury was too remote, emphasizing the short time interval and proximity to disembarkation and finding an adequate causal connection for jurisdictional purposes.

## Legal Principles

- Admiralty tort jurisdiction requires both a maritime locality component and a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity.
- The Admiralty Extension Act extends admiralty jurisdiction to injuries consummated on land when caused by a vessel on navigable waters, including where the operative negligence occurs aboard the vessel.
- The carriage of passengers for hire, including reasonable measures for passenger safety and disembarkation, is a traditional maritime activity supporting admiralty jurisdiction.
- A shipowner may pursue a federal limitation proceeding when admiralty jurisdiction exists, notwithstanding related state-court tort litigation.

## Conclusion

Because Makela’s claims alleged shipboard negligence tied to the maritime activity of passenger carriage on navigable waters and the land-based injury was plausibly caused by that conduct within the Admiralty Extension Act, the federal court had admiralty jurisdiction over the limitation action, requiring reversal and remand.


Duluth Superior Excursions, Inc. v. Makela, 623 F.2d 1251 (8th Cir. 1980)