TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Davis v. City of Jacksonville Beach, Florida

Roland E. DAVIS, a Minor, Etc., Et Al., Libelants, v. CITY OF JACKSONVILLE BEACH, FLORIDA, a Municipal Corporation, and Dean Cowan, Respondents

Davis v. City of Jacksonville Beach, 251 F. Supp. 327 (M.D. Fla. 1965)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court, M.D. Florida · Federal District Courts
Decided
December 2, 1965
Docket
No. 65-15-Adm-J
Judges
McRAE
Citations
251 F. Supp. 3271965 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6928

Opinion — McRAE

McRAE, District Judge.

This suit grew out of an accident occurring in the ocean off Jacksonville Beach, Florida, when a surfboard being ridden by respondent Dean Cowan crashed into libelant Roland E. Davis, who was swimming. Each respondent has filed a motion for “judgment on the pleadings,” alleging that this action does not come within the admiralty jurisdiction.

It is not necessary to reach the novel question whether a surfboard is a vessel. Although drawing criticism from the commentators, see, e. g., 1 Benedict, Admiralty 350-51 (6th ed. Knauth 1940); Comment, 64 Colum. L. Rev. 1084 , 1091 (1964), the weight of authority in this country holds that any tort whatever, occurring on the high seas or navigable waters, is within the admiralty jurisdiction. See, e. g., Weinstein v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 316 F.2d 758 (3d Cir.), cert, denied, 375 U.S. 940 , 84 S.Ct. 343 , 11 L.Ed.2d 271 (1963).

Even- if some maritime connection other than locality is required to sustain jurisdiction (and some such relationship appears in practically every case purporting to follow the general rule), it exists in this case. Of course, the present accident produced no direct or indirect influence on shipping and commerce. But a surfboard, by its very nature, operates almost exclusively on the high seas and navigable waters, and, just like a small canoe or raft, potentially can interfere with trade and commerce. For this reason, admiralty should develop the rules of liability relating to a surfboard’s operation.

After due notice and hearing, it is therefore, upon consideration, Ordered that respondents’ motions for “judgment on the pleadings” are severally denied.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 11 cases

View all citing references →
1967: 11968: 21972: 21973: 21983: 32015: 119672026peak 1983 · 3

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Weinstein v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 316 F.2d 758 (3d Cir. 1963) 42

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list