context: Here, for the purposes of the jurisdictional inquiry, the tort "occurred" on navigable waters because the negligence "took effect" while the Burkes' vessel was docked at a port on navigable waters, even though the negligent act itself -- the installation of the davit -- took place elsewhere.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 919 F.Supp. 1234, 1238
citation_a.parenthetical: "[T]he locality test is met despite the fact that the allegedly defective ... repair of the boat occurred on land."
citation_a.sentence: See Mink v. Genmar Industries, Inc., 29 F.3d 1543, 1546 (11th Cir.1994) (pleasure boat’s alleged design defect “could not have manifested itself, and the injury could not have occurred until the vessel was actually operated as a vessel in navigation. Thus, logically, the tort is a maritime tort.”); see also Bodnar v. Hi-Lex Corp., 919 F.Supp. 1234, 1238 (N.D.Ind.1996) (“[T]he locality test is met despite the fact that the allegedly defective ... repair of the boat occurred on land.”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 29 F.3d 1543, 1546
citation_b.parenthetical: pleasure boat's alleged design defect "could not have manifested itself, and the injury could not have occurred until the vessel was actually operated as a vessel in navigation. Thus, logically, the tort is a maritime tort."
citation_b.sentence: See Mink v. Genmar Industries, Inc., 29 F.3d 1543, 1546 (11th Cir.1994) (pleasure boat’s alleged design defect “could not have manifested itself, and the injury could not have occurred until the vessel was actually operated as a vessel in navigation. Thus, logically, the tort is a maritime tort.”); see also Bodnar v. Hi-Lex Corp., 919 F.Supp. 1234, 1238 (N.D.Ind.1996) (“[T]he locality test is met despite the fact that the allegedly defective ... repair of the boat occurred on land.”).