LeBlanc v. Cleveland, 2d Cir. 1999: Test for “Navigable Waters”
· Facts:
Kayakers involved in a boat collision. The place where the collision
occurred was north of many dams that were impassible. The issue is that
there are rapids, dams and waterfalls in between the kayakers and a
“navigable” waterway
· Issue: What is the definition of a navigable waters?
· Holding: (See test above for “navigability”)
· Reasoning: First definition of navigable waters was articulated in The Daniel Ball.
Those rivers must be regarded as public navigable rivers in law which
are navigable in fact. And they are navigable in fact when they are
used, or are susceptible of being used, in their ordinary condition, as
highways for commerce, over which trade and travel are or may be
conducted in the customary modes of trade and travel on water. For
example a lake that stretches across two states would be considered
navigable even though it is not connected to any other river, because
you could carry goods from one state to another (“a continued highway
over which commerce is or may be carried on with other states or foreign
countries. As long as the river is susceptible of sustaining interstate
commerce then it is considered navigable. If it can connect to a link
in a chain with interstate or foreign commerce then that is sufficient.
It also does not matter that the person be engaged in commerce at all.
· Hypos
1. What
if there is a waterway blocked by a damn in which the little water that
is let through trickles down to a river that crosses state boundaries?
a. If the incident happens in the trickle, after the dam, it would be considered navigable waterways.
b. If
the accident happened in the area above the damn then state law applies
and it is not considered navigable. You must look at the body of the
water in its contemporary condition, not what the body of water used to
be used for or what it might one day be used for.
2. What
if a bunch of boulders fell and blocked the waterway after a sudden
earthquake? What if the government has hired someone to remove those
boulders?
a. Natural and artificial obstructions that effectively prohibit such commerce defeat navigability
b. You
must distinguish between a temporary and permanent obstruction. If
there is evidence that this is only a temporary obstruction because in
six months the government will remove all the boulders. However, if the
obstruction is more permanent like a cement structure then most likely
will no longer be considered navigable.
c. The
historic navigation argument has been rejected in LeBlanc. It all
depends on the current situation of the waters and whether they are used
for commerce now.
3. What if the body of water can be traversed by kayaks only?
a. A
waterway is navigable provided that it is used or susceptible of being
used as an artery of commerce. We are not concerned with the type of
boats that are in the accident. We only concerned with the way in which
the body of water is capable of being used. If the body of water can be
used by a vessel of commerce then it is considered navigable no matter
the vessel that is in the actual accident.
4. What if you could put the cargo on a truck to get around the obstruction?
a. No, any break in travel on the water destroys admiralty jurisdiction.
5. What if the body of water is not currently being used for commerce?
a. Yes, because we don’t want bodies of water to be navigable and not navigable depending on the time period.
b. Example
of man-made waterway that is used by the government but that is
shutdown half of the year and thus not presently being used for
commerce.
6. What
if something falls into the water as a result of an earthquake that
prevent boats from using the waterway? Is it still considered navigable?
a. It
depends on whether this is considered a man-made dam or boulders. There
is an argument that there is nothing to prevent it from being cleaned
up and it was not done intentionally. The other side of the argument is
that this is an equivalent of a damn and thus is permanent and
immovable.
No comments:
Post a Comment