It’s one of the more respected and experienced Courts with regard to Admiralty law. A U.S. Court can have jurisdiction on a party outside the United States if certain “minimum contacts” are established, as evidenced by the fact that the owners of the Alinc were the plaintiff in this action.
It’s not that simple, as this case evidences. Admiralty uses proportionate fault, it’s not one is at fault and the other isn’t. See e.g. United States v. Reliable Transfer Co.. it’s how the owners of the Alinc were found to be liable for some of the damages to the destroyer. And if you want to add some extra shrapnel to the hand grenade, consider the application of the Pennsylvania Rule.
Then why did you bring it up in a discussion about the verdict by an court sitting in admiralty and its assessment of fault and damages? (Hamana, hamana, hamana).
I don’t think that’s a rule of law as much as a pragmatic application of the law, i.e. it’s theoretically possible, but will likely never happen.
See above. It’s a basic principle of admiralty law, recognized internationally for centuries. The U.S. was late to recognize it, see the case I cited above (U. S. v. Reliable Transfer Co.).