In a slip opinion, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated a District Court’s injunction ordering the payment of maintenance and cure. In Collick, the claimant alleged that he was injured while working in conjunction with a crane barge. The claimant slipped and fell, sustaining a severe leg fracture requiring multiple surgeries. Physicians opined that the claimant, who was in constant pain, would never again perform such physically demanding work. Initially, the claimant’s employer began paying benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. Then, once the claimant filed the instant suit wherein he demanded maintenance and cure, the employer discontinued Longshore benefits. By filing his suit, the claimant raised a question as to whether he was entitled to Longshore benefits as he may not be a longshoreman. The claimant then sought a preliminary injunction forcing the employer to pay him maintenance and cure, which theRead more
Louisiana State Employee May Sue Under Jones Act and General Maritime Law
In a recent case issued by the Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, a plaintiff employed by the State of Louisiana, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, sustained cervical spine injuries while he was a member of the crew of a state owned vessel. At the time of his injury, he was patrolling waters near the Head of Passes in Plaquemines Parish. The plaintiff filed a petition for damages seeking relief under the Jones Act and general maritime law. In response, the State filed a peremptory exception, asserting that the plaintiff’s sole exclusive remedy lied in Louisiana workers’ compensation law. The Fourth Circuit disagreed. The plaintiff relied on two earlier decisions to support his proposition that he could seek relief outside of the scope of the of the Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Act (“LWCA”). In Higgins v. State of Louisiana, 627 So.2d 217 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1993), the court determinedRead more
FL Third District: Evidentiary Finding is a Prerequisite to a Punitive Damages Claim
In 2004, an intoxicated employee for the Defendant cruise line knocked on multiple passenger doors, apparently attempting to find a place to sleep. The Plaintiff, Jane Doe, was one of the accosted passengers, and she filed a lawsuit asserting negligence, assualt, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. One month before trial, Plaintiff requested leave to amend her complaint to include punitive damages. Without making a determination as to whether a reasonable evidentiary basis existed for the punitive damages claim, the trial court allowed the amendment. The Defendant appealed the decision and the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, reversed. In Florida, a state statute provides that “[i]n any civil action, no claim for punitive damages shall be permitted unless there is a reasonable showing by evidence in the record or proffered by the claimant which would provide a reasonable basis of suchRead more
Eleventh Circuit: Scope of the Public Vessels Act versus the Suits in Admiralty Act
The Eleventh Circuit recently addressed the interplay between the Public Vessels Act (“PVA”) and the Suits in Admiralty Act (“SAA”) as it related to negligence claims against the Coast Guard. In Uralde, the Coast Guard dispatched a boat to intercept a private vessel trying to illegally enter the United States with several Cuban citizens. A chase ensued, and it did not end until a Coast Guard officer fired two rounds into the private vessel’s engine. The sudden stop caused one of the passengers to strike her head, an injury which eventually led to her death. The plaintiff-widower launched a negligence suit against the Coast Guard, and his negligence theories were “based in the Coast Guard’s decisions regarding whether and how to provide proper medical care and timely access to medical treatment of a passenger on a private vessel interdicted at sea.” Analyzing both Acts together, the Eleventh Circuit determined thatRead more
Negligent Allision of Moving Vessel With Stationary Vessel
Plaintiff, a yacht broker and expert fishing vessel operator, planned a weekend fishing trip with friends aboard the 29-foot M/V Tuner. A tropical storm delayed the fishing trip, and the M/V Tuner remained docked in a marina. Thereafter, Plaintiff noticed a 43-foot vessel, the M/V Special T, was heading directly towards the stationary M/V Tuner. The M/V Special T’s operator, Defendant, could not control the boat due to loss of power, and his attempts to restart the engines failed. He sent out an alarm to notify Plaintiff, who told Defendant not to start the M/V Special T’s engines. Defendant nonetheless continued his efforts. Although Defendant successfully restarted the M/V Special T as it came within feet of the M/V Tuner, a water surge from the newly-started engines caused Plaintiff to lose his balance and fall. Ultimately, he was diagnosed with a fractured calcaneous bone in his right heel and awarded, among otherRead more
