## Facts

- Philip McClenahan, a cruise passenger, participated in a snuba-diving excursion associated with a cruise operated by Paradise Cruises, Ltd.
- McClenahan alleged he suffered ear injuries during the snuba activity, which occurred on navigable waters.
- McClenahan sued Paradise in federal court, invoking admiralty jurisdiction and alleging negligence arising from the excursion.
- Paradise filed a third-party complaint against SNUBA of Oahu, Inc., seeking indemnity and/or contribution related to the alleged injuries.
- SNUBA moved to dismiss on the ground that the court lacked admiralty subject-matter jurisdiction because the incident lacked a sufficient maritime connection.

## Issues

1. Whether a passenger’s injury sustained during a cruise-related snuba excursion on navigable waters falls within federal admiralty tort jurisdiction under the location and connection tests.
2. Whether the incident (as generally characterized) has a potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce.
3. Whether the general character of the activity giving rise to the incident bears a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity.

## Decision

- The court held it had admiralty jurisdiction over the tort claims arising from the snuba incident.
- The location requirement was satisfied because the injury occurred on navigable waters.
- The incident, viewed generally as a passenger injury during a cruise-related maritime excursion, was of a type that could potentially disrupt maritime commerce.
- The activity, considered in context as a commercial cruise excursion involving carriage of passengers and water-based operations, bore a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity.
- SNUBA’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction was denied, allowing the third-party claims to proceed.

## Legal Principles

- Admiralty tort jurisdiction requires satisfaction of both: (1) a location/situs requirement (tort on navigable waters), and (2) a connection requirement consisting of (a) potential disruption to maritime commerce and (b) a substantial relationship between the activity’s general character and traditional maritime activity.
- In applying the connection requirement, courts assess the incident’s “general features” rather than the specific facts of the individual accident.
- Modern recreational activities on navigable waters may fall within admiralty jurisdiction when integrated with commercial maritime operations (e.g., cruise passenger carriage and organized water excursions) such that traditional maritime concerns and commerce-related effects are implicated.

## Conclusion

The court exercised federal admiralty jurisdiction over negligence claims arising from a cruise-associated snuba excursion on navigable waters, concluding the incident met both the location and maritime-connection requirements; it therefore denied the third-party defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.


McClenahan v. Paradise Cruises, Ltd., 888 F. Supp. 120 (D. Haw. 1995)