FOREIGN LAW APPLIED IN U.S. LIMITATION PROCEEDING TO DETERMINE SEAMAN'S DAMAGES.
NOOR BEGUM KARIM, Wife of; FAZAL KARIM, Plaintiffs -Appellants - Cross-Appellees v. FINCH SHIPPING COMPANY, LTD.; ET AL, Defendants;FINCH SHIPPING COMPANY, LTD., Defendant - Appellee - Cross-Appellant
No. 00-30683
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
22001 U.S. App. LEXIS 19657
September 5, 2001, Decided
September 5, 2001, Filed
PRIOR HISTORY: [*1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. 95-CV-4169. Eldon E Fallon, US District Judge.
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: In a maritime personal injury case, plaintiff seaman and defendant shipping company appealed a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana which contained a number of rulings, including a ruling that the shipping company was entitled to limitation, but not exoneration, of liability.
OVERVIEW: Plaintiff seaman was seriously and permanently injured at sea. The district court conducted a trial on defendant shipping company's action under the Limitation of Liability Act of 1851, 46 U.S.C.S. ß 181 et seq. The parties cross-appealed. The court held: (1) jurisdiction was proper because the shipping company consented to jurisdiction; (2) there was nothing unreasonable about the district court's conclusions regarding forum non conveniens; (3) the district court did not err in making a determination of quantum under Bangladeshi law by applying English and Indian precedent; (4) it did not err in setting the amount of general damages under Bangladeshi law to be $160,000, (5) it did not err in determining that the general maritime law of Bangladesh was inapplicable; (6) it did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the shipping company on the seaman's claim under the United States penalty wage statute; (7) the maintenance claim was not properly before the court; (8) it did not abuse its discretion in setting the initial date of interest accrual; and (9) there was no error in the awarding of litigation costs, including fees.
OUTCOME: The judgment of the district court was affirmed.
