Legal Definitions - locality-plus test

The locality-plus test is a legal standard used in maritime law to determine whether a federal court has the authority (jurisdiction) to hear a case involving a wrongful act (a "tort") that occurred on water. For a federal court to exercise this specific type of jurisdiction, two conditions must be met:

• Locality: The incident must have occurred on navigable waters. These are waters that can be used for commercial shipping or travel, such as oceans, major rivers, or large lakes connected to interstate or international commerce.

• Plus (Connection): The incident must also have a significant connection to traditional maritime activity. This means the activity involved must be related to navigation, shipping, maritime commerce, or other activities historically associated with the sea.

This test ensures that federal courts only handle cases that are genuinely maritime in nature, even if they happen to occur on water, distinguishing them from general land-based disputes that merely take place near or on a body of water.

• Example 1: Two commercial tugboats collide in a busy harbor channel, causing damage to both vessels and injuries to crew members. One tugboat owner sues the other for negligence.

  How this illustrates the term: This scenario clearly meets both parts of the locality-plus test. The collision occurred on navigable waters (a harbor channel), satisfying the "locality" requirement. The activity involved, the operation of commercial tugboats and navigation within a harbor, is a quintessential traditional maritime activity, fulfilling the "plus" requirement. Therefore, a federal court would likely have admiralty jurisdiction.

• Example 2: A guest attending a private birthday party on a houseboat permanently moored to a dock in a navigable river slips and falls on a spilled drink, breaking their arm. The houseboat is not actively navigating or involved in any commercial maritime activity.

  How this illustrates the term: While the incident occurred on a houseboat situated in navigable waters, satisfying the "locality" aspect, it fails the "plus" requirement. The activity (a private social party) and the cause of the injury (a spilled drink) are not related to traditional maritime activities like navigation, shipping, or vessel maintenance. It's a general land-based hazard that simply happened on a floating structure, meaning a federal court would likely not have admiralty jurisdiction.

• Example 3: A worker on a floating oil rig, anchored in federal waters off the coast, is injured when a piece of drilling equipment malfunctions during routine operations.

  How this illustrates the term: This situation satisfies both parts of the test. The oil rig is located in federal waters, which are navigable, meeting the "locality" requirement. The activity of offshore oil drilling, while modern, is considered a traditional maritime activity due to its direct connection to maritime commerce, navigation, and the resources of the sea. Thus, a federal court would likely have admiralty jurisdiction over the worker's injury claim.