CRUISE INJURY | MARITIME LAW | JURY TRIALS | FEDERAL ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION

An exploration of how the “saving to suitors” clause impacts an injured plaintiff’s right to a jury trial in maritime personal injury and death cases across state and federal courts.

Published: August 19, 2026
Subject: Right to a jury trial in maritime personal injury and death claims
Primary Legal Authority: 28 U.S.C. § 1333 (Saving to Suitors Clause)
Jurisdiction: Federal Admiralty and U.S. State/Federal Courts

Do You Get a Jury in a Maritime Injury Case? The “Saving to Suitors” Clause

In a maritime personal injury or death case, whether a jury decides the case depends on how and where you bring the suit. Furthermore, court choice dictates whether a judge or jury hears your claim.

Federal Admiralty Jurisdiction and the “Saving to Suitors” Clause

Section 1333 of Title 28 confers admiralty jurisdiction on the federal courts. The same statute contains a provision known as the “saving to suitors” clause. This clause saves to suitors (plaintiffs) nonadmiralty remedies available under common law. Consequently, injured plaintiffs may pursue common law remedies in state courts.

Ordinarily, when plaintiffs seek monetary damages for maritime torts, they have a strategic choice. Specifically, they can file an admiralty suit in federal court or file a civil action in state court.

Where the Jury Comes In

If you file a maritime suit in federal court strictly under Section 1333, there is no right to a jury trial. Instead, a federal judge hears and decides the case.

However, bringing suit in state court offers the distinct advantage of a jury trial, as provided by state law. Furthermore, plaintiffs can request a jury trial in federal court under Section 1332 if diversity of citizenship exists.

In addition, the Jones Act specifically provides injured seamen with the right to a jury trial. Seamen do not lose this right when joining general maritime law claims with a Jones Act action.

Some Remedies Can Be Pursued Only in Federal Admiralty

There are some limitations on the remedies that plaintiffs may pursue in state court, the most significant being that admiralty remedies — such as the action in rem — may be brought only in an admiralty action in federal court. If the plaintiff’s injury or death was caused by a vessel, suit may be brought in personam against the vessel owner or operator, in rem against the vessel itself, or both; an action under the Jones Act, however, may not be brought in rem.

Removal to Federal Court

Generally, it is the plaintiff who chooses whether to sue in federal or state court. If the plaintiff exercises the right to file in state court and the only basis for federal jurisdiction is Section 1333, the defendant may not remove the action to federal court, because doing so would defeat the objective of the saving to suitors clause. If another basis for federal jurisdiction exists — such as diversity of citizenship — the action may be removed in conformity with the removal statute. Suits under the Jones Act filed in state court by seamen, however, may not be removed even if there is another basis for federal jurisdiction, such as diversity.

State Courts Still Apply Maritime Law

Where a plaintiff invokes the saving to suitors clause to sue in state court, or in federal court under diversity jurisdiction, the issues in most cases are resolved by applying the substantive rules of admiralty and maritime law, whether enacted by Congress or part of the general maritime law. The application of federal law in these cases is known as the “Reverse Erie” doctrine, under which state courts are required to apply substantive maritime law even when a case is properly brought in state court. At the same time, federal courts (and state courts) may, in some circumstances, apply state substantive law even where the case falls under admiralty jurisdiction.

Disclaimer: This blog post is provided for educational and informational purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Maritime law is complex and continues to evolve; the authorities discussed here are drawn from a general legal treatise and may have been modified by later court decisions or legislation. Do not rely on this article as a statement of the current law or as advice about your specific situation. For advice about your own case, consult a licensed maritime attorney.

Authorities Discussed in This Article:

• The Hine, 71 U.S. 555 (1866)
• Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co., 358 U.S. 354 (1959)
• Fitzgerald v. United States Lines Co., 374 U.S. 16 (1963)
• O’Donnell v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 318 U.S. 36 (1943)
• Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527 (1995)
• Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A. v. Calhoun, 516 U.S. 199 (1996)
• 28 U.S.C. § 1333 (admiralty jurisdiction and the saving to suitors clause)

About Maderal Byrne & Furst: Maderal Byrne & Furst PLLC is a Miami-based law firm that represents passengers seriously injured in cruise ship and maritime accidents. We encourage you to learn more about our firm, meet our attorneys, explore our other practice areas, review our results or see our rating and reviews on Google.

If you or a loved one was hurt aboard a cruise ship, contact us for a free, confidential case evaluation — and because cruise claims carry short deadlines, please reach out promptly.