Tau

MEMORANDUM **

Tinermalo Tau (Tau) appeals from the judgment of the District Court for the Western District of Washington granting Defendants/Appellants’ motion for summary judgment. After Tau conceded that he was not entitled to recover on his claims for unseaworthiness, maintenance and cure, and negligence under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.App. § 688, the district court held that Tau was also not entitled to recover for negligence under general maritime law because he failed to show that the shooting that caused his injuries was foreseeable or that the Defendants/Appellants, Joseph and Joyce Malley (Malleys), failed to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances.

The maritime nature of Tau’s remaining tort claim determines the choice of whether federal maritime or state tort law governs the merits. See Christensen v. Georgian-Pacific Corp., 279 F.3d 807 , 814 & n. 27 (9th Cir.2002). Although the parties *664 suggested at oral argument that the tort claim is governed by maritime law under Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625 , 79 S.Ct. 406 , 3 L.Ed.2d 550 (1959), the test for whether a claim is maritime in nature has changed since Kermarec was decided.…