|
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
VII. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE -> L. Settlement
685. Generally
Tugboat owner is entitled to evidentiary hearing on his motion to rescind agreement settling seaman's claim based on disabling arm injury, so that owner could present motion picture evidence of seaman lifting various sorts of building materials. Russell v Puget Sound Tug & Barg Co. (1984, CA9 Wash) 737 F2d 1510.
Where injured seaman enters into settlement agreement containing "Mary Carter" provision providing that settling defendant will be remibursed to specified degree from any recovery plaintiff receives in suit against nonsettling defendant, court's discretion in approving and enforcing agreement, as well as in disclosing terms thereof to jury, is magnified, since seaman is traditional ward of admiralty; adequacy of consideration is relevant in admiralty court's scrutiny of seaman's release, and party asserting release has burden of affirmatively showing that no advantage has been taken. Wilkins v P.M.B. Systems Engineering, Inc. (1984, CA5 Tex) 741 F2d 795.
Settlement of suit for injury under traditional admiralty claim in negligence under 46 USCS Appx § 688 was improper by set-off against company's annuities and benefits plan since such settlement cannot be classified as "benefit resulting from premiums. . . paid by any of Gulf companies under any Workmen's Compensation law or similar legislation." Dupree v Gulf Oil Corp. (1971, ED Tex) 328 F Supp 480.
Motion of injured seaman to enforce alleged settlement agreement must be denied where corporate defendant challenged both existence of agreement and scope of counsel's authority to settle case, and plaintiff failed to show "meeting of the minds" sufficient to result in binding and enforceable oral settlement agreement made with either actual or apparent authority. Thompson v Continental Emsco Co. (1986, SD Tex) 629 F Supp 1160.
Settling maritime defendants' motions under state code provision for declaration of good faith settlement precluding subsequent actions for contribution and indemnity are denied and denials will not be certified for interlocutory appeal under 28 USCS § 1292, because (1) state procedural statutes governing settlement of state torts do not apply to Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) and maritime actions, (2) immediate appeal will not resolve federal rule regarding settlement of multidefendant maritime actions, and (3) interests of public and injured seaman call for prompt and just resolution of claims. Daughtry v Diamond M Co. (1988, CD Cal) 693 F Supp 856.
686. Claims of minors
In action brought under 46 USCS Appx § 688, court is mindful of its obligations to protect interests of minors and in so doing, to scrutinize terms of any proposed settlement of their lawful claims. Donnarumma v Barracuda Tanker Corp. (1978, CD Cal) 79 FRD 455.
Settlement of minor-beneficiaries' claim executed by minors' natural tutrix with defendants after action to enforce minors' claim was instituted by personal representative of decedent, is invalid. Benoit v Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. (1978, La) 355 So 2d 892, on remand (La App 3d Cir) 361 So 2d 1332.to join ship. Karvelis v Constellation Lines S.A. (1986, CA2 NY) 806 F2d 49.
JONES ACT- TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
|
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.
