Court Had Jurisdiction To Consider Claims Of Seaman, Who Was Citizen Of Republic Of Honduras, For Relief Under Laws Of Honduras, Mexico, Or International Maritime Law. The Plain Language Of The Jones Act Denied Remedy Under Jones Act And Us Maritime Laws
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff seaman filed an action against defendant, alleging negligence under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.S. app. § 688, and unseaworthiness under the general maritime law. Defendant moved for summary judgment.
OVERVIEW: The seaman was a citizen of the Republic of Honduras. Both the seaman's employer and the owner of the vessel were subsidiaries of defendant. Defendant contended that § 688(b) denied a foreign seaman the right to sue in a federal or state court of the United States. The seaman argued that § 688(b) did not deprive him of access to courts in the United States to present claims for his injury under the laws of Honduras and Mexico. The court concluded it had jurisdiction to consider the seaman's claims for relief under the laws of Honduras, Mexico, or international lex maritime. The plain language of § 688(b)(1) denied the seaman a remedy under the Jones Act and the maritime laws of the United States; however, the statute did not refer to the jurisdiction of a federal court over a seaman's claims under foreign laws. Accordingly, defendant did not establish that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the foreign law claims were barred under § 688.
OUTCOME: The motion for summary judgment was denied.
