LeBlanc v. Cleveland
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
198 F.3d 353, 2000 AMC 609 (1999)

- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Etoile LeBlanc and Stephen Ossen (plaintiffs) were paddling a kayak in the Hudson River approximately 29 miles north of Fort Edward. The river at Fort Edward was navigable by vessels to the south to New York City and the Atlantic Ocean, and to the north through the Champlain Canal to the St. Lawrence River. However, above Fort Edward, and below the location where LeBlanc and Ossen were kayaking, numerous areas of rapids, waterfalls, and manmade dams prevented passage of any vessel to those navigable points. LeBlanc and Ossen were injured when their kayak was struck by a recreational boat operated by Terry Cleveland and owned by Robert Grant (defendants). LeBlanc and Ossen sued Cleveland and Grant in federal district court under admiralty jurisdiction. Cleveland and Grant brought a third-party complaint against JRD Retailers, Ltd. (defendant), the outfitter that had rented LeBlanc and Ossen the kayak. JRD moved to dismiss the complaints as lacking subject-matter jurisdiction. The district court granted the motion, finding that admiralty jurisdiction did not apply because the Hudson River was not navigable in the location where the accident occurred. LeBlanc and Ossen appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Parker, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.