• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.3-35
• /
• 2016

The United States Constitution gives power to the federal district courts to hear admiralty cases. 28 U.S.C. §.133, which states that "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the Courts of the States, of any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction." However, the determination of whether a case is about admiralty or maritime so that triggers admiralty jurisdiction was not a simple question. Through numerous legal precedents, the courts have drawn a line to clarify the boundary of admiralty cases. This unique jurisdiction is not determined by the mere involvement of a vessel in the case or even by the occurrence of an event on a waterway. As a general rule, a case is within admiralty jurisdiction if it arises from an accident on the navigable waters of the United States (locus test) and involves some aspect of maritime commerce (nexus test). With regarding to the maritime nexus requirement, the US Supreme Court case, Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, held that federal courts lacked admiralty jurisdiction over an aviation tort claim where a plane during a flight wholly within the US crashed in Lake Erie. Although maritime locus was present, the Court excluded admiralty jurisdiction because the incident was "only fortuitously and incidentally connected to navigable waters" and bore "no relationship to traditional maritime activity." However, this historical case left a milestone question: whether an aircraft disaster occurred on navigable water triggers the admiralty jurisdiction, only for the reason that it was for international transportation? This article is to explore the meaning of admiralty jurisdiction over aviation accidents at US courts. Given that the aircraft engaged in transportation of passenger and goods as the vessels did in the past, the aviation has been linked closely with the traditional maritime activities. From this view, this article reviews a decision delivered by the Seventh Circuit regarding the aviation accident occurred on July 6, 2013 at San Francisco International Airport.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.2
• /
• pp.315-343
• /
• 2018

In the event of an air accident, the media and members of the general public pay attention to the victim of the accident and are deeply concerned about their actions and rewards. However, through the accident of Air China(CCA) Flight 129, which occurred in 2002, we were able to confirm that it is a real problem that the victims of the air accident as well as the victims suffer much suffering and serious aftermath. Nevertheless, Korea's system for assistance the families of victims of air accident is very poor. On the other hand, when Trans-World Airlines(TWA) Flight 800 exploded and crashed over the Atlantic Ocean in 1996, the United States enacted a law to assistance the families of the victims of the accident. According to this law, systematic assistance and management of not only the victims of the accident but also their families, minimize the additional damage of victims and victims' families and help them to get rid of the accident after the accident. In particular, the measures taken by the US authorities in response to an accident in which an Asiana Airlines flight(AAR) 214 crashed during a landing at San Francisco International Airport in 2013, made a lot of suggestions for us to assistance the victims and their families in an air accident. The purpose of this paper is to suggest the necessity of improving the system for victims and victim's family assistance in air accident. In this paper, we analyze the domestic and foreign legal systems and related cases in past accidents, identify the deficiencies of the Korean system, and derive the necessity to improve the related system. It is also important to make sure that victims' families are relieved from early psychological and economic shocks and that the results of accident investigations are reliable. Relevant ministries, airlines, and related agencies should recognize that prompt and systematic assistance and cooperation is needed to ensure that victims and families are relieved of the impact and confidence in the investigation, as is the case in the United States. In addition, efforts should be made to supplement the related laws for the assistance of aircraft victims and victims' families, to establish manuals for implementation, to plan and to implement them promptly in the event of an accident. To achieve this, it is necessary to establish regulations for the legal institutionalization of the roles and responsibilities of national and state agencies on victims of aviation accidents and family assistance. And the victim and family assistance plan that the airline has to submit to it, as specified in the current law, need to specify that item. In addition, new and supplemented contents should be integrated into a single clause or proposed as a separate special law for the purpose of applying a clear law.