## Facts

- Larsen, a Danish seaman, joined the crew of the *Randa* while temporarily in New York.
- The *Randa* was a Danish-flag vessel owned by Lauritzen, a Danish shipowner.
- Larsen signed Danish-language ship’s articles providing that crew rights would be governed by Danish law and a union agreement with the Danish Seamen’s Union.
- Larsen was allegedly negligently injured in the course of employment aboard the *Randa* while in Havana harbor, Cuba.
- Larsen sued Lauritzen in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, demanded a jury, and sought damages under the Jones Act.
- Lauritzen argued Danish law governed and that Larsen had already received all compensation due under Danish law; Lauritzen also challenged jurisdiction.
- The district court applied U.S. law and entered judgment on a jury verdict for Larsen; the Second Circuit affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal district court has in personam jurisdiction over a foreign shipowner in a Jones Act suit by a foreign seaman for an injury occurring in a foreign port.
2. Whether the Jones Act applies to a maritime tort involving a foreign seaman, a foreign shipowner, a foreign-flag vessel, and an injury abroad.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held the district court had in personam jurisdiction because the defendant appeared generally, answered, and did not object to personal jurisdiction; the court could determine whether the asserted federal cause of action was legally well founded.
- The Supreme Court reversed on the merits of applicable law, holding the Jones Act inapplicable to this claim.
- The Court concluded that the relevant contacts and international maritime practice required application of Danish law rather than U.S. law.

## Legal Principles

- In personam jurisdiction over the defendant is distinct from whether the plaintiff’s asserted federal statutory claim is substantively available; a court with personal jurisdiction may decide whether the claim is well founded.
- U.S. maritime statutes written in broad terms are generally construed, consistent with international law, not to apply to foreign transactions lacking sufficient U.S. contacts.
- The place of the wrongful act (tort locality) is not controlling in maritime choice of law; an injury on a foreign ship in foreign waters does not, by itself, justify applying U.S. law.
- The law of the flag is a primary consideration for shipboard matters affecting the vessel and its crew, particularly where the dispute concerns internal relations between foreign parties.
- Transitory presence of a foreign seaman in the United States (including signing on in a U.S. port) does not alone create a sufficient U.S. interest to apply the Jones Act.
- The place of contract has limited weight for choosing the law governing a maritime tort, especially where the employment articles validly select foreign law.
- An American forum’s ability to exercise jurisdiction, or a defendant’s regular business in the forum, does not alone justify applying forum law to an otherwise foreign maritime dispute.
- Maritime choice of law under the Jones Act requires weighing multiple contacts, commonly identified as: law of the flag; allegiance/domicile of the injured seaman; allegiance of the shipowner; place of the wrongful act; place of the contract; accessibility of a foreign forum; and law of the forum.

## Conclusion

The Court held that federal courts could hear the suit in personam but could not apply the Jones Act because the dispute was predominantly Danish in its parties, vessel, governing articles, and regulatory interests, and U.S. statutory language is read against international maritime practice and a multi-factor choice-of-law analysis led by the law of the flag.


Lauritzen v. Larsen, 345 U.S. 571 (1953)