Whatever Floats the 'Reasonable Observer's' Boat: An Examination of Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida and the Supreme Court's Ruling that Floating Homes Are Not Vessels

Local and state legislatures have taken active steps in developing a workable code of laws and regulations that apply specifically to floating homes. However, because these homes are on top of navigable waters and are physically capable of being towed across the high seas, there was a valid argument that such structures fall under maritime law and are therefore governed by federal admiralty statutes. The term “vessel” is defined in Section 3 of the U.S. Code as “every description of watercraft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water.” This definition is the threshold question that courts must answer before applying any federal law affecting vessels to a particular watercraft. The case law that developed since Section 3’s enactment has helped refine that broad definition into a more useable standard. This Note provides a comprehensive overview of Section 3’s place in admiralty law, from its codification in the late nineteenth century, throughout its evolution over the generations, leading to the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Fla., where it held that floating homes are not “vessels” as contemplated by federal statutes. Section II of this Note begins by introducing the parties and establishing the history involved in Lozman, a case that decided the question of whether a Florida resident’s floating home was a vessel subject to admiralty laws and federal jurisdiction. Historical case law and subsequent evaluations of maritime precedent, upon which both the Lozman Court and the parties relied, is detailed in Section III. This Note dissects the Lozman opinion in Section IV, discussing the Court’s reasoning for why it held that the floating home was not a “vessel” for jurisdictional purposes under Section 3. Section V then provides an analysis of the decision, examining the way the Court utilized precedent and incorporated traditional admiralty law tests. Lastly, Section VI lays out various policy concerns existing in the underpinnings of admiralty and property law that point in favor of the Supreme Court’s decision to exclude floating homes from federal regulation.