|
American Trial Lawyers Association
Consumer Lawyers Hawaii
Stanford Law School
American Bar Association
Marquis' Who's Who
in the World,
Who's Who
in America and
Who's Who
in American Law
|
|
|
JONES ACT- TABLE OF CONTENTS
The Jones Act
Merchant Seaman Protection and Relief 46 USCS Appx § 688 (2002) Title 46. Appendix. Shipping Chapter 18.
[Chapter 46 United States Code (USCS) Appx § 688 is commonly referred to the Jones Act. Often, the cite "46 USCS Appx § 688 " may be clarified as (The Jones Act).]
§ 688. Recovery for injury to or death of seaman
(a) Application of railway employee statutes; jurisdiction. Any seaman who shall suffer personal injury in the course of his employment may, at his election, maintain an action for damages at law, with the right of trial by jury, and in such action all statutes of the United States modifying or extending the common-law right or remedy in cases of personal injury to railway employees shall apply; and in case of the death of any seaman as a result of any such personal injury the personal representative of such seaman may maintain an action for damages at law with the right of trial by jury, and in such action all statutes of the United States conferring or regulating the right of action for death in the case of railway employees shall be applicable. Jurisdiction in such actions shall be under the court of the district in which the defendant employer resides or in which his principal office is located.
[The Jones Act provides statutory protection of injured seamen. Prior to the enactment of the Jones Act, injured offshore workers were protected by common law only. The Jones Act allows qualifying seamen the same protections afforded to U.S. railroad employees under the F.E.L.A. (Federal Employees’ Liabilities Act). The Jones Act canonized many common law maritime principles, such as maintenance and cure.]
(b) Limitation for certain aliens; applicability in lieu of other remedy.
(1) No action may be maintained under subsection (a) or under any other maritime law of the United States for maintenance and cure or for damages for the injury or death of a person who was not a citizen or permanent resident alien of the United States at the time of the incident giving rise to the action, if the incident occurred—
(A) while that person was in the employ of an enterprise engaged in the exploration, development, or production of offshore mineral or energy resources--including but not limited to drilling, mapping, surveying, diving, pipelaying, maintaining, repairing, constructing, or transporting supplies, equipment or personnel, but not including transporting those resources by a vessel constructed or adapted primarily to carry oil in bulk in the cargo spaces; and
(B) in the territorial waters or waters overlaying the continental shelf of a nation other than the United States, its territories, or possessions. As used in this paragraph, the term "continental shelf" has the meaning stated in Article I of the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf.
(2) The provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not be applicable if the person bringing the action establishes that no remedy was available to that person—
(A) under the laws of the nation asserting jurisdiction over the area in which the incident occurred; or
(B) under the laws of the nation in which, at the time of the incident, the person for whose injury or death a remedy is sought maintained citizenship or residency.
Jones Act Table of Cases
|
|
William H. Lawson
Accident Lawyer Hawaii
Century Square
1188 Bishop St. Suite 2902
Honolulu, HI 96813
New client hotline:
(808) 524-5300
Main business phone:
(808) 528-2525
Directions to Accident Lawyer Hawaii
Personal injury news- articles of interest
Personal injury news- articles of interest
Personal injury cases
Hawaii state constitution
Like our site? Trade links with us!
Visit our directory of law related sites
Jones Act- maritime law and seaman cases
STATUTE'S LANGUAGE
CASE LAW
I. IN GENERAL
A. General Principles
B. Other Remedies
1. Traditional Maritime
Remedies
2. Federal Law Remedies
3 Remedies by State Law
C. Foreign Involvement
1. In General
2. Place of Injury
3. Flag or Ownership
of Vessel
a. In General
b. Foreign Ownership
c. Foreign Vessels
with American Interests
4. Nationality of Seaman
5. Other Factors
II. PERSONS ABLE
TO RECOVER
A. Seamen
1. General Principles
a. In General
b. Status as Seaman
2. "Vessel in Navigation"
a. In General
b. Status of Vessel
c. Particular Vessels
3. Particular Seamen
B. Representatives of
Seamen
III. EMPLOYMENT
A. In General
B. Particular Entities
as Employers
C. In Course of
Employment
IV. NEGLIGENCE
A. In General
B. Vicarious Liability
1. In General
2 Particular Acts of Crew
C. Circumstances of
Injury
1. Assault
a. In General
b. Assaults Among Crew
& Officers
2. Improper Supervision
a. In General
b. Particular Acts
3. Medical Care
4. Particular Properties
of Vessel & Dock
5. Other Circumstances
V. DEFENSES
A. Seaman's Conduct
1. Comparative
Negligence
2. Assumption of Risk
3. Particular
Circumstances
B. Release
C. Limitations of Actions
1. Statutory Limitations
2. Laches
D. Collateral Estoppel &
Res Judicata
E. Limitation of Liability
F. Other Defenses
VI. DAMAGES
A. In General
B. Damages for Injury
1. Elements of Damages
2 Award Deductions
C. Wrongful Death
1. Elements of Damages
2. Computation of Award
VII. PRACTICE &
PROCEDURE
A. State Court Actions
B. Jurisdiction
1. In General
2. Bases of Jurisdiction
C. Venue
1. In General
2. Bases of Venue
3 Forum Non Conveniens
D. Election of Remedies
1. In General
2. Particular Remedies
E. Institution of Action
F. Pleadings and Motions
1. Complaint
2. Answer
3. Motions
G. Removal and Remand
H. Discovery
I. Jury
1. Right To Jury Trial
2. Submission of Issues
J. Evidence
1. In General
2. Plaintiff's Burden
of Proof
3. Defendant's Burden
4. Admissibility
K. Appeal and Review
L. Settlement
On March 14, 2012 the Supreme Court of Hawaii issued a
decision in the case of First Insurance v. A and B Properties.
The court held that an injured worker can intervene in a pending lawsuit
filed by his/her employer even after the applicable statute of limitations
has run, thus giving the same rights of intervention to employees that
employers/insurers have always had. This decision shows some promise that
the Hawaii Supreme Court will continue its tradition of protecting the
rights of the individual citizen against the one-sided and self centered positions
of insurance companies and big business.
|
1999-2012.
