The Court Had The Equitable Power To Alter A Contingent Fee Agreement Between A Seaman And His Attorney
NOOR BEGUM KARIM, Etc.; ET AL., Plaintiffs, FAZAL KARIM,Plaintiff-Appellee, versus FINCH SHIPPING COMPANY LTD.; ET AL., Defendants, andTHE LAW OFFICE OF PAUL C. MINICLIER, Appellant. In Re: In the Matter of FINCHSHIPPING COMPANY LTD., Owner and Operator of the M/V Loussio for Exonerationfrom or Limitation of Liability; NOOR BEGUM KARIM, Etc.; ET AL., Claimants,FAZAL KARIM, Claimant-Appellee, versus THE LAW OFFICE OF PAUL C. MINICLIER,Appellant.
No. 03-30069
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 11815
June 16, 2004, Filed
PROCEDURAL POSTURE:
Appellant, the attorney who represented appellee seaman pursuant to a contingency fee agreement, sought review of an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, asserting that the court erred when it modified the terms of the contingent fee agreement to be more beneficial to the seaman, who was absent from the jurisdiction. The ultimate issue was whether the district court abused its discretion.
OVERVIEW:
The seaman, a Bangladeshi national, was injured at sea and taken to New Orleans to recuperate. The attorney advanced many of the seaman’s expenses, for which he had been reimbursed. When the vessel owner eventually paid the judgment in favor of the seaman, he had long since been deported. Rather than pay the judgment to the attorney, as the attorney demanded, the owner paid the judgment into the court, which exercised its protective role for the seaman, as a ward of the court. It modified the fee agreement from the contract terms, whereby the attorney would have received 40 percent of the gross judgment, which would have left the seaman with no recovery. The attorney appealed, arguing the district court lacked jurisdiction and lacked the legal authority to alter the fee agreement. The court of appeals affirmed. The district court, sitting in admiralty, had the equitable power to reform the contingent fee agreement, particularly to the benefit of an absent seaman, and was not limited to paying out the funds. The fact that the court applied Louisiana and Bangladeshi law in the case did not alter the admiralty jurisdiction. There was no abuse of discretion by the district court.
OUTCOME:
The judgment of the district court was affirmed.
————————————–//—————————————-
Jury Question For Both Negligence And Unseaworthiness When Other Crew Members Let Go Of A Line.
JOHN MULLETT v. SABINE TRANSPORTATION CO., Owner and/or Operator of SS SAG RIVER
CIVIL NO. 02-12014-RGS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11262
June 21, 2004, Decided
PROCEDURAL POSTURE:
Plaintiff merchant seaman sued defendant employer, the operator of a cargo vessel, for Jones Act negligence, unseaworthiness, and maintenance and cure. The employer moved for summary judgment asserting that the seaman could not prove that a defect or condition of the ship played a part in his accident, that his claim for maintenance and cure was satisfied, and that the foundation of the Jones Act claim rested solely on conjecture.
OVERVIEW:
The seaman was injured when, just as he was trying to put the eye of a mooring line over a bollard, the Bulgarian crew members let go of the line, causing it to jerk the seaman’s arm that was, at that moment, through the eye. The seaman’s account, which began with the line being held fast by the Bulgarians and ended with the line suddenly in free play, was sufficient to warrant a jury, if it credited his testimony, in finding negligence on the part of the Bulgarian crew members. If the jury also found that letting go the line caused the seaman’s injury, the employer was liable. The employer argued that by claiming that the accident was caused by human error, the seaman admitted that no physical condition caused his injury, and thus, no basis existed for a claim for unseaworthiness. While the evidence depended largely on the seaman’s opinion of the seamanship of the Bulgarians, if the seaman persuaded the jury that the employer had employed an inexperienced crew who could not understand the operating language of the ship, it could also have found that the employer was responsible for a defect in the ship wholly apart from the momentary negligence that resulted in his injury.
OUTCOME:
The court denied the employer’s motion for summary judgment on the Jones Act negligence claim and the claim for unseaworthiness; the claim for maintenance and cure was deemed waived.
————————————–//—————————————-
Court Tried Limitation Action After Jury Verdict On Liability And Damages
DAMON L. RENFROW, Plaintiff, v. SILVER SPRAY SEAFOODS,L.L.C., Defendant.
Civil No. 03-6039-TC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11947
June 17, 2004, Decided
June 17, 2004, Filed
OVERVIEW:
Defendant, in a motion for summary judgment, asserted the affirmative defense of limitation of liability pursuant to the Limitation of Liability Act. The court found that the defense was timely raised, but ruled that the defense would be considered, if necessary, after the jury had considered the merits of plaintiff’s claims and determined damages. Order of October 15, 2003 (# 22). The jury having reached a verdict for plaintiff, and having awarded damages in excess of the value of the vessel on which he served and its cargo at the time of his injury, n1 it is now the court’s obligation to consider whether the limitation of liability defense should be applied.
————————————–//—————————————-
Case Dismissed Based On Forum Non Conveniens Where No Connection To The United States
MARTHA A. DOWNS CALLASSO, as Personal Representative of theEstate of William Seaman Smith, Plaintiff, vs. MORTON & CO., NICARAGUA LINECO., and ARIANE SHIPPING CORP., LTD., Defendants.
Case No. 03-21136-CIV-MOORE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11205
June 15, 2004, Decided
June 15, 2004, Filed
PROCEDURAL POSTURE:
Plaintiff, a personal representative of a decedent, sued defendants, a vessel owner, the vessel’s technical manager, and a charter corporation, alleging wrongful death under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.S. app. § 688 et seq., unseaworthiness based on general maritime law, and for negligence and unseaworthiness under the Death on High Seas Act, 46 U.S.C.S. app. § 761 et seq. The owner and manager moved to dismiss based on forum non conveniens.
OVERVIEW:
The owner and manager claimed that the representative was collaterally estopped from challenging a previous state court order dismissing the representative’s claims based upon forum non conveniens. The court initially held that the representative was barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel from challenging the legal and factual findings of the state court order. The court then held that the owner and manager did not have sufficient contacts with the United States (U.S.) because the decedent’s fatal accident occurred on the vessel docked in Nicaragua, the vessel was an Antiguan flagged ship, neither the decedent nor the representative were U.S. citizens, the owner was not registered to do business in the forum, the place of contract was Nicaragua, and Nicaragua was an accessible forum. The court further held that the representative failed to show that Nicaragua was an inadequate forum because the owner and manager consented to jurisdiction of the Nicaraguan courts, satisfactory remedies were available to the representative, the private and public interest factors weighed in favor of a Nicaraguan forum, and Nicaraguan law would most likely have to be applied to decide the case.
OUTCOME:
The motion to dismiss under the doctrine of forum non conveniens was granted. The motion to dismiss under the doctrines of abstention and res judicata was denied as moot.
————————————–//—————————————-
Seaman Injured By Chair That Collapsed Entitled To Recover From His Employer, Chair Seller And Chair Manufacturer
DELMA J. DAIGLE VERSUS L & L MARINE TRANS. CO.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-2325 SECTION “L”(5)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10958
June 14, 2004, Decided
June 14, 2004, Filed
June 15, 2004, Entered
PROCEDURAL POSTURE:
Plaintiff, a former ship employee, sued defendants, a ship owner and its insurer, under, inter alia, the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.S. app. § 688 et seq., and general maritime law for damages he sustained when a captain’s chair collapsed under him. The owner filed a third-party complaint against third-party defendants, the captain’s chair pedestal’s seller and its manufacturer. A bench trial ensued.
OVERVIEW:
The seller claimed that it was not strictly liable for the faulty chair pedestal because it was merely a middle-man seller. The court initially held that the owner was liable to the employee under the Jones Act because it had actual or constructive notice, through its employees, of the unsafe condition of the ship’s captain’s chair and failed to correct the unsafe condition, and that the owner was not entitled to limit its liability to the amount of the vessel because it failed to prove lack of privity and knowledge of the unsafe condition. The court further held that the employee established his unseaworthiness claim against the owner because the captain’s chair collapsed when put to its normal and intended use causing injuries to the employee, but that the owner was entitled to indemnity from the seller and the manufacturer. The court then held that the seller was liable for the majority of the employee’s damages because it failed to warn of the dangers involved in adjusting the leveling mounts on the pedestal, and that the manufacturer was comparatively liable for the employee’s damages due to its expertise concerning metals and construction.
OUTCOME:
The employee was entitled to joint and several recovery for his damages and pre- and post-judgment interest from the owner, its insurer, the seller, and the manufacturer.
————————————–//—————————————-
Motions By Both Passenger Who Claimed A Sexual Assault And By Ferry Operator To Exclude Opposing Expert Testimony Denied
WENDY PETERSON, Plaintiff v. SCOTIA PRINCE CRUISES LTD.,Defendant
Docket No. 03-174-P-H
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10457
June 9, 2004, Decided
PROCEDURAL POSTURE:
Plaintiff passenger filed a personal injury action against defendant ferry carrier alleging that she was assaulted while she was a passenger on the ferry. Both parties filed motions in limine to exclude all or part of the testimony of an expert witness named by the opposing party.
OVERVIEW:
The ferry sought to exclude all of the testimony from the passenger’s expert, who was going to offer an opinion about the safety and security requirements for the ferry. The ferry contended that the expert’s opinions were not reliable or helpful, in part, because they did not meet the Daubert standard. The court held that the ferry’s emphasis on scientific principles and replicable experiments or studies was misplaced when the case involved an alleged assault and robbery. The court found that the passenger’s designated expert could potentially assist the jurors with industry standards of safety and security. The passenger sought to exclude medical testimony from the ferry’s expert who would testify that the passenger was not raped or assaulted and that her injuries could be explained by her intoxication. The court denied the passenger’s motion to exclude the testimony because there was no showing that the opinions would mislead the jury or cause the passenger undue prejudice. The physician provided evidence that he was qualified, and the physician had demonstrated his methodology and the reliability of the opinion. The opinions were not speculative or conjectural.
OUTCOME:
The court denied both parties’ motions in limine to exclude testimony from the opposing parties’ designated expert.
————————————–//—————————————-
United States And The Navy Had Sovereign Immunity For Death Occurring On Vessel Under Construction Due To Lack Of Admiralty Jurisdiction
PATRICIA MACKLIN – DUCRE, ON BEHALF OF MONIKA MACKLIN, MINORVERSUS RENTAL SERVICE CORP., ET AL CIVIL ACTION NO: 03-3559 SECTION: “A” (3)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10284
June 3, 2004, Decided
June 4, 2004, Filed
June 7, 2004, Entered
PROCEDURAL POSTURE:
Plaintiff, on behalf of two minors, sued defendants, including the United States, the United States Department of the Navy, and a vessel, alleging that plaintiff’s decedent was fatally injured during an accident on the vessel. The United States moved to dismiss the action or for summary judgment due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
OVERVIEW:
The decedent allegedly was fatally injured while working onboard a vessel being built for the United States Department of the Navy. The complaint asserted that the court had jurisdiction over plaintiff’s action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 1331(1); the Public Vessels Act, 46 U.S.C.S. app. §§ 781-790; the Suits in Admiralty Act, 46 U.S.C.S. app. §§ 741-752; 33 U.S.C.S. § 905(b); and 33 U.S.C.S. § 933(a) of the Longshore & Harbor Worker’s Compensation Act. The United States moved to dismiss or for summary judgment on all claims against it, the Department of the Navy, and the vessel because the United States had not waived sovereign immunity from liability for such claims, and consequently, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the federal defendants. The court agreed. The Public Vessels Act and the Suits in Admiralty Act applied only if the court had admiralty jurisdiction over the dispute. A ship under construction, even one that was nearly finished, was not a “vessel” for maritime jurisdiction purposes, and it was undisputed that the vessel the decedent was working on was not yet complete when the fatal accident occurred.
OUTCOME:
The court granted the United States’ motion.
————————————–//—————————————-
Summary Judgment Granted To Ferry Operator Against Passenger Claiming Assault And Battery
WENDY PETERSON, Plaintiff v. SCOTIA PRINCE CRUISES LIMITED,Defendant
Docket No. 03-174-P-H
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9987
June 2, 2004, Decided
PROCEDURAL POSTURE:
Plaintiff former passenger sued defendant ferry operator for assault and battery, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, conversion, common law misrepresentation, and breach of a contract of carriage and absolute vicarious liability. The operator moved for summary judgment on those claims, and on any claim for punitive damages. The case was referred to a magistrate for a report and recommendation.
OVERVIEW:
The passenger alleged that she was robbed and assaulted by a crewmember while travelling on the ferry. The allegations were investigated at the time the passenger reported the incident, and no arrest or other action was taken. The passenger’s failure to file a response to the operator’s statement of material facts or a statement of additional material facts in her own behalf meant that there was no evidence in the summary judgment record to support the necessary factual predicate for all of the counts at issue — that she was assaulted by an employee of the operator. The passenger had not produced sufficient facts to establish the presence of a trial worthy issue. The operator could not be held liable for punitive damages unless the employee at issue was a managerial agent, the operator authorized or ratified the tortious behavior, the operator had reason to suspect or was aware of the misconduct before it took place, or the operator failed to take appropriate action after learning what had happened. The summary judgment record did not include any evidence that would have allowed a reasonable factfinder to conclude that any of these conditions were met.
OUTCOME:
The magistrate recommended that the court grant the motion.
————————————–//—————————————-
Judgment For Employer Affirmed Where Seaman Failed To Request Assistance In Lifting Line From Water
KENTRELL DORSEY VERSUS J. RAY MCDERMOTT, INC.
2003 CA 2264
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FIRST CIRCUIT
2003 2264 (La.App. 1 Cir, 06/25/04);
2004 La. App. LEXIS 1634
June 25, 2004, Judgment Rendered
PROCEDURAL POSTURE:
In plaintiff claimant’s suit against appellee employer for injuries sustained offshore, the 23rd Judicial District Court, in and for the Parish of Assumption (Louisiana), dismissed his unseaworthiness and Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.S. § 688, negligence claims, but ordered the employer to pay his maintenance and cure until he reached maximum medical cure. The trial court then entered a judgment establishing the amount of cure owed. Both parties appealed.
OVERVIEW:
Much of the claimant’s complaint was grounded in the allegation that the material barge was mis-rigged. Specifically, the claimant challenged the placement of the eye of the rope, or line, on the material barge rather than on the lay barge. However, the overwhelming evidence supported the conclusion that having the eye of the line on the material barge was not indicative of the line being mis-rigged. Additionally, handling lines was “manual work,” and the fact that the claimant’s duties as a rigger required physical straining did not equate to a negligent or unseaworthy condition. Furthermore, although the claimant maintained that his injury was caused by there being insufficient personnel on board and because his supervisors failed to recognize his need for assistance in lifting the polypropylene line from the water, the claimant admitted that he did not request assistance from anyone. Thus, the record clearly supported the trial court’s conclusion that (1) the employer was not negligent in causing the claimant’s injury and (2) the vessel was seaworthy. Therefore, the claimant was not entitled to damages under the Jones Act or the doctrine of unseaworthiness.
OUTCOME:
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
————————————–//—————————————-
No Liability Where Landowner Warned Captain Of Vessel About Dangers On Land Adjacent To Docked Vessel
GEORGE MICHAEL ORR VERSUS OTTO CANDIES, INC., ET AL.
04-60
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, THIRD CIRCUIT
04-60 (La.App. 3 Cir, 06/09/04); 2004 La. App. LEXIS 1477
June 9, 2004, Decided
PROCEDURAL POSTURE:
Plaintiff merchant marine filed suit for damages after he sustained injury on defendant company’s property. The Sixteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Iberia, Louisiana, found in favor of the company and ruled that any fault for the fall was to be apportioned between the marine and his employer.
OVERVIEW:
The merchant marine’s ship docked at an unimproved portion of the landowner’s property to take on water. When the captain approached the docking area, the landowner gave them permission to dock but advised them of the washouts, or holes in the landscape, and advised them to be careful. The merchant marine was injured when he left his employer’s ship to disconnect a water hose and stepped into a “washout” on the landowner’s property and sustained serious injuries. The trial court held that the landowner had fulfilled any duty that it had by informing the captain of the ship of the “washout” conditions where they docked. The appellate court affirmed. The appellate court held that given that this was an area where the landowner did not regularly conduct business, the landowner advised the ship’s captain to be careful of the washout areas, and it was dark enough at the time that the merchant marine was injured that he could not see his steps, the landowner acted reasonably and fulfilled his duty.
OUTCOME:
The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.
————————————–//—————————————-
Judgment Nov Granted For Seaman Who Died From Asbestos Exposure Even Though Jury Found No Causation
CHRISTINA TORREJON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONALREPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF JOSEPH TORREJON VERSUS MOBIL OIL COMPANY,INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR TO SOCONY VACUUM OIL COMPANY AND SOCONY MOBIL OILCOMPANY; BABCOCK & WILCOX COMPANY; COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC.; THE FLINTKOTECOMPANY; FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION ; GARLOCK INC.; ET AL.
NO. 2003-CA-1426
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FOURTH CIRCUIT
2003-1426 (La.App. 4 Cir, 06/02/04);
2004 La. App. LEXIS 1517
June 2, 2004, Decided
PROCEDURAL POSTURE:
Defendant employer appealed a judgment from the Civil District Court, Orleans Parish (Louisiana), which, in a maritime wrongful death case, granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) in favor of plaintiff, the personal representative of a deceased employee’s estate.
OVERVIEW:
The employee died of mesothelioma. The parties stipulated that the disease was caused by asbestos exposure. The employer argued that the particular asbestos exposure that caused the mesothelioma could have occurred elsewhere. The jury found that the employer was negligent in exposing the employee to asbestos, but the jury also found a lack of causation. The court, in affirming the trial court’s grant of JNOV to the estate, concluded that the jury’s finding of lack of causation was completely absent of evidence, inferences, and pertinent law to support it. The court noted that a featherweight standard of causation was applicable in Jones Act cases. Although some manufacturers of asbestos had entered into a settlement agreement with the estate, the trial court did not err in finding that the employer was wholly liable, having failed to establish liability on the part of the settling manufacturers. The trial court acted within its discretion in clarifying its reasons for judgment to delete an improper reference to loss of society damages, which were not available in a Jones Act case; hence, the trial court did not err in denying the employer’s motion for new trial.
OUTCOME:
The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the estate.
————————————–//—————————————-
Judgment For Wheel Chair Passenger Who Was Injured While Being Carried On Stairs Due To Broken Elevator Was Affirmed
NICHOLAS J. MUSACCHIA, JR. VERSUS HILTON NEW ORLEANSCORPORATION, NEW ORLEANS PADDLEWHEELS, INC., QUEEN OF NEW ORLEANS, INC., QUEENOF NEW ORLEANS AT THE HILTON JOINT VENTURE, NEW ORLEANS PADDLEWHEELS (TEXAS),INC., HILTON HOTELS CORPORATION AND HILTON HOTELS PARTNER I, INC.
NO. 2003-CA-1100
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FOURTH CIRCUIT
2003-1100 (La.App. 4 Cir, 06/02/04);
2004 La. App. LEXIS 1524
June 2, 2004, Decided
PROCEDURAL POSTURE:
Defendants, a casino gaming vessel and an individual, appealed a judgment from the Civil District Court, Orleans Parish (Louisiana), which, in a bench trial under general maritime law, awarded damages to plaintiff patron for personal injuries sustained aboard the vessel.
OVERVIEW:
The elevator in the vessel was not operational when the patron visited. The patron, who used a wheelchair, received assistance from the vessel’s employees in boarding and leaving the vessel. He was injured when he fell from his chair. The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the patron, concluding that the vessel owner was negligent in instructing its employees to carry wheelchair patrons up and down flights of stairs when safer means could have been used. The vessel owner breached its duty to provide a safe means of ingress and egress. Comparative negligence could not be imputed to the passenger because he allowed the vessel’s employees to assist him in boarding or because he did not give them instructions in how to do so. Although it was probable that the individual defendant participated in the effort to carry the patron, his involvement was minimal; hence, the allocation of a small percentage of fault to him was not demonstrably wrong. Based on the medical testimony given, the injuries caused the patron to endure great pain and suffering. Accordingly, the court found that a substantial award of damages did not constitute a clear abuse of the trial court’s discretion.
OUTCOME:
The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the patron.
Cruise Line Forum Selection Clause Enforced Even Though Passenger Claimed Lack Of Notice
ROSE SCHLESSINGER et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.HOLLAND AMERICA, N.V., Defendant and Respondent.
B166213
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT,DIVISION SEVEN
2004 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5458
June 9, 2004, Filed
OPINION:
Rose Schlessinger, Virginia Adams and Renee Ladenheirn sued Holland America N.V. (HAL) for damages caused by failure to warn and negligence after they became ill during a seven-day Alaskan cruise on a passenger ship operated by HAL. The trial court granted HAL’s motion to dismiss the complaint based on a forum selection clause in the cruise ticket contract that required all disputes relating to the cruise to be litigated in courts[*2] located in the State of Washington. Schlessinger n1 appeals on the ground she had insufficient notice of the forum selection clause. We affirm.
