MARITIME TORT. A tort which by rea son of the place where it is committed is within the jurisdiction of admiralty.
A tort committed upon water and which comes within the jurisdiction of a court of admiralty. The Arkansas, 17 Fed. 387.
Admiralty courts have always had juris diction of torts committed upon the high seas, and there is also no question as to in juries upon waters of the sea where the tide ebbs and flows, but in the United States, where that is not the test, the jurisdiction would extend to any waters which for other purposes are held to be within the general admiralty jurisdiction. Civil jurisdiction of torts has been said to depend solely upon the place where the cause of action arises ; The Commerce, 1 Black. (Ti. S.) 574, 17 L. Ed. 107 ; but a doubt is suggested whether it does not also "depend upon the relation of parties to a ship or vessel, embracing only those tortious violations of maritime right and duty which occur in vessels, to which the admiralty jurisdiction in cases of contract applies." Bened. Adm. § 308. This maritime jurisdiction of civil injuries has been held to extend to all cases of personal injuries committed by the master or his offi cers against passengers or seamen ; id. § 309. The jurisdiction has been held not to sur• vive the death of the person injured even if aided by a state statute enabling an ad ministrator to sue for such injuries in ordi , nary cases ; Crapo v. Allen, 1 Sprague 184, I Fed. Cas. No. 3,300. It was held that no ac
tion would lie for the death of a person killed by a marine tort; The Harrisburg, 119 U. S. 199, 7 Sup. Ct. 140, 30 L. Ed. 358,, where the decisions are collected. See DEATH. In that case the question whether an action in, rem. would lie was left undetermined. A personal action in such case has been maintained against the owner at common law ; McDonald v. Mallory, 77 N. Y. 546, 33 Am. Rep. 664 ; and also in admiralty ; The City of Norwalk, 55 Fed. 98.
Every violent dispossession of property at sea prima facie a maritime tort; The L'Invincible, 1 Wheat. (U. S.) 238, 4 L. Ed. .80. An injury to a vessel from negligence in operating a drawbridge is a maritime tort, and a suit in admiralty will lie against the town therefor ; Greenwood v. Town of West port, 60 Fed.' 560; Hill v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 45 Fed. 260 ; Edgerton v. The Mayor, 27 Fed. 230; City of Boston v. Crow ley, 38 Fed. 202.
In actions for 'torts arising from negli gence, courts of admiralty do not confine themselves within the limits of mere munic ipal law, but deal with the question of dam age upon enlarged principles of justice, to the extent of dividing, the damages in cases of , mutual fault; Greenwood v. Town of Westport, 60 Fed. 560, 578'; The Max Mor 'ris, U. S. 1, 11 Sup, Ct. 29, .34, L. Ed. 586. See MAiiiTthE CAUSE..
. .