## Facts

- A tender from the M/Y *Maridome* struck a metal pipe structure in the harbor at Poros, Greece, while transporting passengers and crew from ship to shore.
- Four individuals were killed (British crewmembers and European guests), and one crewmember was seriously injured.
- The tender’s operator was alleged to have been intoxicated and operating at excessive speed.
- The *Maridome* was a British-flag luxury yacht owned by a Channel Islands corporation; the ultimate beneficial owner was a Mexican citizen domiciled in Mexico.
- None of the injured or deceased were U.S. citizens or domiciliaries, and crewmember employment contracts were not signed in the United States.
- Victims’ relatives initially pursued relief in Greece, including arrest of the vessel in the Greek Court of Piraeus; the vessel posted security and departed Greece, and the Greek claims were later withdrawn without prejudice.
- Plaintiffs later sued in the Southern District of California asserting claims under the Jones Act, the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA), and general U.S. maritime law, arguing that the vessel effectively operated from the United States due to U.S.-based shoreside management.

## Issues

1. Whether the Jones Act applies to a maritime accident occurring in Greek territorial waters involving non-U.S. victims aboard a foreign-flag vessel owned by foreign interests.
2. Whether DOHSA and general U.S. maritime law apply under the Lauritzen–Rhoditis choice-of-law framework, including the “base of operations” factor.
3. Whether dismissal was proper where foreign law and a foreign forum (Greece) had substantially greater connections to the dispute.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the Jones Act, DOHSA, and general U.S. maritime law claims.
- Applying Lauritzen and Rhoditis, the court held the relevant contacts weighed against applying U.S. law.
- The court rejected plaintiffs’ contention that U.S. shoreside management established a U.S. “base of operations” sufficient to displace the overwhelmingly foreign contacts.
- The court treated the availability of Greek proceedings and the parties’ initial resort to Greek courts as consistent with resolving the dispute under foreign law and in a foreign forum.

## Legal Principles

- Applicability of the Jones Act and related U.S. maritime remedies to international maritime torts is determined by the Lauritzen–Rhoditis multifactor choice-of-law analysis.
- Key factors include the place of the wrongful act, law of the flag, allegiance/domicile of the injured parties, allegiance of the shipowner, and place of contract; strong foreign contacts generally defeat application of U.S. law.
- Rhoditis’s “base of operations” is relevant but does not control in isolation; it must be weighed against the full set of contacts.
- Where an accident and parties are predominantly foreign and a foreign forum is available, U.S. statutory maritime remedies may be unavailable.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that a fatal tender accident in Greek waters involving non-U.S. victims aboard a British-flag yacht owned by foreign interests was governed by foreign, not U.S., maritime law; U.S. shoreside management contacts did not justify applying the Jones Act, DOHSA, or general U.S. maritime law.


Warn v. M/Y Maridome, 169 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 1999)