## Facts

- A collision on the high seas between the Norwegian bark *Luna* and the Belgian steamship *Belgenland* resulted in the *Luna* being run down and sunk.
- The *Luna* (about 359 tons) was sailing from Porto Rico to Queenstown or Falmouth with a cargo of sugar.
- The collision occurred at night in the North Atlantic; the *Luna*’s case was that the steamship’s light was observed “right ahead” when a mile or more off, that the bark kept her course, and that the steamship made no timely change and struck her at speed.
- The *Belgenland* denied fault, contending that the *Luna* was crossing the steamship’s bow and had changed course, and that the bark was not seen until the moment of impact.
- The *Belgenland* attributed late detection to a shower of rain and mist and to the steamship’s plunging into a heavy head sea that threw water over her forward turtle-deck.
- Part of the *Luna*’s crew, including her master, were rescued by the *Belgenland* and brought to Philadelphia.
- The master of the *Luna* promptly filed a libel in admiralty in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of the owners of the *Luna* and her cargo and the surviving crew.
- The *Belgenland* objected to jurisdiction because the collision was between foreign vessels on the high seas and no American citizen was interested in the bark or her cargo.
- The district court overruled the jurisdictional objection and entered a decree for the libelant interests totaling $50,278.23.
- On appeal, the circuit court made detailed findings about the vessels’ courses, speed, lights, weather, and lookout and affirmed liability against the *Belgenland*.
- The owners of the *Belgenland* appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging both the exercise of jurisdiction and the finding of fault.

## Issues

1. Whether a U.S. admiralty court may, and should, exercise jurisdiction over a high-seas collision between foreign vessels of different nationalities when no American ownership interest is shown.
2. If jurisdiction is exercised, what law governs liability: the forum’s general maritime law, the law of the flag, or some shared international maritime rule.
3. Whether the facts found below established fault by the *Belgenland* sufficient to sustain the decree.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the decree against the *Belgenland*.
- A collision on the high seas between vessels of different nationalities is prima facie a proper subject for inquiry in any admiralty court that first obtains jurisdiction.
- U.S. admiralty courts may, in their discretion, take jurisdiction over a collision on the high seas between two foreign vessels; when the dispute arises under the common law of nations (general maritime law), the court should take jurisdiction unless special grounds are shown for refusing it.
- Once a lower court has taken jurisdiction, the appellant must show the discretion was exercised on wrong principles or otherwise exercised wrongfully.
- The governing law is the general maritime law as understood and administered in the forum, with two qualifications: (i) persons on either ship are not to be blamed for following the sailing regulations and rules prescribed by their own government for conduct on the high seas, and (ii) if the maritime law administered by both flag nations is shown to be the same on a point, that shared rule should be followed even if different from forum doctrine.
- On the merits, the Court held that the facts found below furnished conclusive proof of negligence by the *Belgenland*; negligence could be treated as a legal conclusion inferred from those facts, and the decree for the *Luna*’s interests was properly entered.

## Legal Principles

- U.S. admiralty courts have discretionary authority to hear high-seas collision cases between foreign vessels, and such cases are ordinarily suitable for the first admiralty court that acquires jurisdiction.
- When the controversy is governed by general maritime law (the common law of nations), a U.S. court should proceed unless special reasons for refusal are shown.
- On review, the party attacking the exercise of discretionary admiralty jurisdiction bears the burden to show the lower court acted on wrong principles or otherwise acted wrongfully.
- In a U.S. admiralty suit for a high-seas collision between foreign vessels, the forum’s general maritime law governs, subject to (i) not imposing fault for compliance with each vessel’s national sailing regulations and (ii) applying any proven shared rule of maritime law administered by both flag nations.
- When the found facts conclusively show fault, negligence may be treated as a conclusion of law drawn from those facts.

## Conclusion

*The Belgenland* holds that U.S. admiralty courts may, and generally should, take jurisdiction over high-seas collisions between foreign vessels when the dispute turns on general maritime law; that the forum’s general maritime law applies subject to limited recognition of each vessel’s national rules and any proven shared foreign rule; and that, on the findings made below, the *Belgenland* was negligent and the decree for the *Luna*’s owners, cargo interests, and surviving crew was properly affirmed.


*The Belgenland*, 114 U.S. 355 (1885)

The Belgenland, 114 U.S. 355 (1885)