VII. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE J. Evidence 3. Defendant's Burden of Proof - 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 J. Evidence 3. Defendant's Burden of Proof

661. Generally

Burden of proving that mortgagee, guarantor of mortgage, or any similar encumbrancer, not holder of equitable title, is employer for 46 USCS Appx § 688 purposes, is on one who asserts it. Fitzgerald v A. L. Burbank & Co. (1971, CA2 NY) 451 F2d 670, 14 ALR Fed 525.

In action under 46 USCS Appx § 688, it is not incumbent on defendant to make proof of any facts upon which it relies as defense until plaintiff has established prima facie liability of defendant for injuries sustained by plaintiff. Lykes Bros.-Ripley S. S. Co. v Pluto (1940, Tex Civ App) 146 SW2d 414, writ dismd.


662. Contributory negligence and assumption of risk

Employer has burden of proof to establish that seaman assumed risk of injury. W. R. Chamberlin & Co. v Rylander (1934, CA9 Cal) 68 F2d 362, 1934 AMC 192.

In Seaman's action under 46 USCS Appx § 688, defendant has burden to prove by preponderance of evidence, seaman's contributory negligence. Mason v Mathiasen Tanker Industries, Inc. (1962, CA4 Va) 298 F2d 28, 5 FR Serv 2d 938, cert den 371 US 828, 9 L Ed 2d 66, 83 S Ct 23; Nolan v Greene (1967, CA6 Ky) 383 F2d 814; Fleming v American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc. (1970, SD NY) 318 F Supp 194, affd in part and revd in part on other grounds (CA2 NY) 451 F2d 1329.

Even though burden of establishing contributory negligence rests upon defendant, in suit under 46 USCS Appx § 688, contributory negligence may be shown by plaintiff's own evidence or may be fairly inferred from all facts and circumstances of case. Honea v Matson Navigation Co. (1972, ND Cal) 336 F Supp 793.

"Reasonable care" standard applies to defendants' counterclaim in seaman's action alleging negligence under Jones Act and unseaworthiness of vessel, where defendants alleged contributory negligence, because standard for contributory negligence is traditional negligence standard of whether seaman exercised care which reasonably prudent person would have exercised under circumstances. Brown v OMI Corp. (1994, SD NY) 863 F Supp 169, judgment entered, claim dismissed (1994, SD NY) 1994 US Dist LEXIS 18239.

In seaman's action for personal injuries, burden of proof of defenses of contributory negligence or act of fellow servant, if available, is on ship. Proctor v Sword Line, Inc. (1948, City Ct) 83 NYS2d 288.


663. Settlement and release

Burden is on party relying upon release to show that it was executed freely, without deception or coercion, and was made by seaman with full understanding of his rights. Law v United Fruit Co. (1959, CA2 NY) 264 F2d 498, cert den 360 US 932, 3 L Ed 2d 1546, 79 S Ct 1452.

Amount of settlement is not, in itself, determinative of validity of seaman's release of action under 46 USCS Appx § 688, but inadequate settlement adds greatly to defendant's burden of proving that no advantage was taken of seaman's relatively weaker bargaining position. Morris v Fidelity & Casualty Co. (1970, ED La) 321 F Supp 320, affd (CA5 La) 441 F2d 1146.

In action by seaman, burden is on party claiming prior settlement as defense to prove that earlier settlement was entered into by seaman with full understanding of his rights. Concepcion v United States Navy (1983, SD NY) 575 F Supp 23.

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.