VII. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE E. Institution of Action - Maritime Lawyer Hawaii
   

Maritime Accident Lawyer Hawaii

Law Office of William H. Lawson

William Lawson - Admiralty Accident Attorney Hawaii
 
Home
About Us
Initial Steps
Contact us


 

American Trial Lawyers Association
American Trial Lawyers Association

Consumer Lawyers Hawaii
Consumer Lawyers Hawaii

Stanford Law School
Stanford Law School

American Bar Association
American Bar Association

Marquis' Who's Who
Marquis' Who's Who
in the World,
Who's Who
in America and
Who's Who
in American Law




Recent Personal Injury and Car Accident News


An important victory in the fight for individual rights (as opposed to insurer rights) is the case of Yukumoto and HMSA v. Tawahara. In that case on May 26, 2017, the Hawaii Supreme Court rejected the efforts of a health insurer who tried to convert its insurance coverage into a 'loan agreement' and recover its medical expense payments from Mr. Yukumoto when he had a 3rd party claim - in spite of the fact that he was not being fully compensated for his losses. This insidious insurance practice has been damaging the citizens and members of the Hawaii community for many years. For more info, see the decision here: Yukumoto and HMSA v. Tawahara, Hawaii Sup. Ct. No. SCAP-15-0000460 (May 26, 2017).



 

 

JONES ACT - TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Jones Act

VII. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE E. Institution of Action

569. Service of process

Where accident for which damages are claimed under 46 USCS Appx § 688 occurred within territorial limits of Illinois, service of federal process may be made in manner prescribed by Illinois statute. Frase v Columbia Transp. Co. (1957, DC Ill) 158 F Supp 858.

Presence of master of vessel touching at Pittsburgh was not such as to make him appropriate agent to receive service of process so as to establish jurisdiction over transitory tort unrelated to activities of master within state of Pennsylvania. Leith v Oil Transport Co. (1962, WD Pa) 210 F Supp 877, affd (CA3 Pa) 321 F2d 591 (disagreed with Pure Oil Co. v Suarez (CA5 Fla) 346 F2d 890, affd 384 US 202, 16 L Ed 2d 474, 86 S Ct 1394).

State court had jurisdiction under 46 USCS Appx § 688 where service was had on steamship company, by delivering summons to its manager in city where it maintained an office and transacted its business. Winfield v United Fruit Co. (1933) 135 Cal App Supp 791, 24 P2d 247, 1933 AMC 1223.


570. Securing costs

28 USCS § 1916 is applicable to action under 46 USCS Appx § 688, and on reversal of judgment for defendant, with remand for new trial, clerk may be compelled to issue mandate without prepayment of costs. Grant v United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp. (1928, CA2 NY) 24 F2d 812, 1928 AMC 629.

Seaman suing under 46 USCS Appx § 688 for personal injuries caused by failure to furnish safe place to work, must give bond for costs and fees, no Safety Appliance Act being involved. The Bennington (1925, DC Ohio) 10 F2d 799.

Stevedore as "seaman" is not required to secure costs in suit under 46 USCS Appx § 688. Fletcher v Lancaster S.S. Corp. (1935, DC NY) 11 F Supp 704, 1935 AMC 784.

For action by seaman for personal injuries to come within 28 USCS § 1916, prescribing cases in which seaman is exempt from necessity to file security or prepay fees, action must be based upon law for health and safety of seaman; 46 USCS Appx § 688 is such law. Di Stefano v Ropner & Co. (1944, DC NY) 57 F Supp 517, 1944 AMC 1106.

Seaman was not entitled to dismiss suit for negligence under 46 USCS Appx § 688 in which he had not paid costs where he elected to proceed with prior suit in admiralty for negligence. Stalker v Southeastern Oil Delaware, Inc. (1951, DC Del) 103 F Supp 436.

Policy of 46 USCS Appx § 688 and of other laws designed for protection of seamen and to compensate them for injuries sustained in course of their employment should not be thwarted by indirection, as by requiring seaman to furnish bond for costs or else forego compensation. Ganem v Bernuth Lembcke Co. (1948, City Ct) 82 NYS2d 777.


571. Attachment of vessel

Action in personam in admiralty under 46 USCS Appx § 688 may be commenced and maintained in district in which defendant employer does not reside and in which his principal office is not located, by attaching defendant's property and compelling his appearance by writ of foreign attachment, under admiralty rules of venue; phrase "such actions" in venue provision of 46 USCS Appx § 688 has reference to actions on law side of federal courts. Brown v C. D. Mallory & Co. (1941, CA3 Pa) 122 F2d 98.

Proceeding in foreign attachment is not proceeding in rem and may be brought where no lien exists against vessel. The Frieda (1937, DC Pa) 1937 AMC 227.

In action under 46 USCS Appx § 688, right of foreign attachment was not authorized to be issued, and no jurisdiction over defendant corporation, served by foreign attachment, was obtained. The M. E. Farr (1940, DC NY) 38 F Supp 8, 1941 AMC 330.

JONES ACT - TABLE OF CONTENTS


 

Law Office of
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

Accident Lawyer Hawaii - Get a free consultation

Personal injury news- articles of interest

Personal injury cases

Hawaii state constitution




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

The information provided in these pages is intended to be preliminary and informational ONLY. It is not legal advice by Accident-Lawyer-Hawaii nor may it be relied upon as such. The use of the
Accident Lawyer Hawaii
webpages does not establish an attorney-client relationship. This page is Copyright Accident Lawyer Hawaii 1999-2017.