" /> Cruise Ship Law: November 2006 Archives

« October 2006 | Main | December 2006 »

November 15, 2006

Another Passenger Disappearance - Ferry Boat

Search called off for missing ferry couple
By David Sapsted
Telegraph.co.uk

A major search was called off this afternoon for a couple who disappeared from a cross-Channel ferry in the early hours of this morning.

Coastguards admitted that they did not know if the man and woman, who were travelling on a Brussels-bound coach aboard the P&O ferry Pride of Kent, had fallen overboard or had simply got on the wrong coach when the ship arrived in Calais from Dover at about 2am.

After a search of the ship failed to find any trace of them, French and British coastguards launched a major air and sea search involving four lifeboats, a plane, a rescue tug, two helicopters and a French frigate. Shipping using the Channel was also put on alert for the couple.

Conditions in the area were said to be choppy but visibility was good. However, at lunchtime, French and British authorities agree to call off the search.

“If they had fallen from the ferry and were still on the surface, they would have been found by now,” said a Coastguard spokesman. ”It is possible that the bodies have sunk but it also possible that they got off at Calais after boarding the wrong coach or, even, getting a ride from someone in a car. Inquiries are continuing at both terminals.

"If they have fallen from the height of the ferry, the bodies might well sink and may not surface until days later. We cannot rule anything out from a tragic accident to suicide to a simple misunderstanding.”

The alarm was raised when the Anglia International coach driver realised that the couple, who were travelling without luggage, were missing when he went to disembark at Calais.

Andy Roberts, of Dover Coastguard, said that there reports of the couple being seen on board the ferry shortly after it set sail from Dover.

November 12, 2006

On a Cruise, Law of the Sea can be Rocky

The story below is really horrifying and re-iterates points we have been bringing up on our maritime law blog since its inception. When you are at sea you are at the mercy of the shipping company. You have to be prepared to protect yourself and your family, under any circumstances and in any situation...and you can not rely on the shipping company to help you.

One resource we believe is helpful for persons about to depart on a cruise is the Cruise SOS web site. The site provides a free card which you can download and keep in your wallet while you are on your cruise. The wallet sized card contains emergency contact information including the FBI, Coast Guard, maritime lawyers and more. As well as steps to take to protect yourself and your rights in case you are injured or are the vicitim of crime on a cruise ship. We highly recommend all cruise passengers carry this card with them. Its a very simple step to take and will provide you with the knowledge you need most if you are forced into a bad situation on a cruise ship.


On a Cruise, Law of the Sea can be Rocky

BY ELLEN CREAGER
FREE PRESS TRAVEL WRITER

One moment, they were enjoying a pleasant 12-day Mediterranean cruise on the Grand Princess. The next moment, they were stranded in Kusadasi, Turkey, unable to call home, $5,800 in debt and afraid.

How did Yvonne Boike of Berkley and her fianci, Nick Panos of St. Clair Shores, go from cruising delight to disaster in just a few short hours?

Their tale is not just a personal travel horror story. It's a wake-up call for anyone who cruises.

As cruise lines add exotic ports of call in distant destinations, passengers may not realize that in an emergency they will likely be dropped off at any port in a personal storm -- even a remote one in a faraway land. When it happens, you'll be on your own. And travel insurance may not protect you.

"I'm still having nightmares," says Boike. It started Sept. 7, when Panos woke up on day six of the cruise, sick to his stomach and coughing up blood. The couple hurried to the ship's clinic. There, a doctor did about $1,000 worth of tests. Concerned that Panos had something more serious or contagious, he told them both would have to disembark and go to the hospital on shore.

Panos asked if they could delay until the cruise reached Greece, where he had friends. No, said the doctor. They asked whether Boike could remain aboard since she wasn't sick. She couldn't.

A ship's nurse called their travel insurer, Travelex, and the couple was whisked off the ship into a Turkish ambulance in Kusadasi, a resort village in the Aegean Sea.

"I was in shock," says Boike. "But I assumed they would call our emergency contacts or the U.S. Embassy for us." She assumed wrong.

Out to sea

Nearly 12 million people cruise worldwide each year. Almost none of them realize one major fact, says Mark Pastronk, a travel attorney in Washington, D.C.: "A cruise ship is not really a floating resort. It is more like a foreign country, and you're pretty much on your own.

"You are at sea, legally. American law doesn't apply to a cruise ship in the middle of the ocean. You're nowhere."

Cruise ship passengers can be put off wherever and whenever the staff sees fit. They don't have to take you back. They are also not obligated in an emergency to call your emergency contact.

"Every one of those is an 'it depends' type of thing," says Michael Crye, president of the International Council of Cruise Lines, which counts Princess as a member.

"Cruise lines generally have port agents who know the port and facility," he said. "They rely heavily on a port agent to handle medical arrangements and evacuations as necessary."

But what if something goes wrong? How does he suggest passengers protect themselves? "Consider taking out travel insurance."

Isolated in the hospital

Princess contends that Boike and Panos could have called family from the cruise ship, and that the policy is not to make the partner of an ill person disembark. Yet, the couple says they never had a chance to call their families, and Boike was forced off.

The couple were not cruise novices. It was Panos' 17th cruise and Boike's 10th. The two senior citizens were healthy when the cruise boarded in Rome, stopping at Monte Carlo, Florence, Naples and Kusadasi, en route to Greece.

Now, the couple found themselves at Kusadasi Private Hospital, in a room with a bed, folding couch, no working telephone, and no one who spoke English. For two days, they had no contact with the outside world. He lay sick in bed, an IV needle strapped to his hand.

Late the second day, a mysterious man came in and told them he was working with their insurance company. Boike used the man's cell phone to call her surprised daughter, Cindy Cobb, in New Hampshire.

"That's when we found out the cruise line had notified nobody," Boike says. "We disappeared and nobody even knew where we were."

Meanwhile, who was the mysterious man? Princess contends he was a representative of its port agent. Boike doubts it: "If he was from Princess, it was news to me."

By the time the phone in their room was finally fixed on the third day and they called Travelex, the agent told Boike, "We've been looking for you."

Buying travel insurance

Since 9/11, Americans have become more cautious world travelers. Thirty percent now take out trip insurance, and an estimated 1 in 6 of those will file a claim. Among cruise passengers, 70% take out insurance, according to the U.S. Travel Insurance Association. It costs between 4% and 8% of the trip cost, or about $160 for a $3,000 cruise.

"A lot of people get the cheapest thing, which is penny wise and dollar foolish," says Travelex spokeswoman Chris Buggy. Most important are medical coverage and a policy that pays for the unused portion of an interrupted trip.

Insurance is critical for a cruise, say travel attorneys.

Why? Mishaps at sea are governed by 19th-Century maritime law, making it hard to win any lawsuit, even for injury or medical mishaps. Cruise lines' passage contracts limit or deny liability for anything that might go wrong on a ship, whether it's missed ports, personal injury, theft, blunders by doctors, beauticians or gym instructors, injury on a shore excursion, even bad food.

If your ship does not touch a U.S. port, you have even less protection.

Here's what the Princess contract says: "The ship has the right to confine you to your room or disembark you at any time if its personnel decides your presence might be detrimental to your health or someone else's."

You pay first

By the fourth day, Panos was feeling better. A doctor told him he had gotten a gastric infection but was not contagious. He was ready to rejoin the cruise, which had cost the couple $7,000. But the Grand Princess had long departed.

The only option was to find a way to get home.

That's when they found out their $92 bare-bones travel insurance policy wouldn't cover Boike's $1,300 plane ticket from Turkey to Detroit or the cost of the unused portion of their trip.

Also, it wouldn't pay medical costs up front. Panos would have to pay $4,800 to the hospital.

While declining to comment specifically on this case, Buggy of Travelex said that's the way most travel insurance medical plans operate.

You pay first. They pay later.

'Somebody dropped the ball'

Early on Sept. 11, Panos paid Kusadasi Private Hospital $4,800 with his Visa card. They paid another 150 euros ($190) cash for a shuttle to the Izmir Airport 80 kilometers away. They flew to Istanbul, slept 7 hours overnight inside the airport, then flew to Frankfurt, then finally back to Detroit.

The couple has since written to Princess, asking to be reimbursed for Boike's $1,300 flight. They also want credit for the six days of the cruise they missed.

Most of all, they want an apology.

"The question we have is, where was customer care?" Panos says.

More than a month has now gone by. The couple has not heard from Princess, but the Princess statement to the Free Press disputes the couple's claims: "We regret that Mr. Panos is unhappy with the circumstances and events following his disembarkation. ... It is unfortunate that Mr. Panos did not have the proper travel insurance arrangements."

The ICCL's Michael Crye says it sounds like a giant misunderstanding.

Says Florida cruise industry analyst Stuart Chiron: "Somebody definitely dropped the ball."

Last week, Travelex paid up, reimbursing Panos for his $5,800 medical expenses on board and on land.

The Grand Princess left the Mediterranean on Wednesday to spend the winter cruising in the Caribbean out of Galveston, Texas.

Panos and Boike are cruising again. They'll take another one in Hawaii in December, on Celebrity.

But Panos says he has learned something that cruise lines definitely won't want passengers to hear:

"I learned that unless you are on death's door or break a leg, never go to the ship's doctor."

November 8, 2006

Siblings Take on Cruise Line after Father’s Death

This article follows up on our blog posts regarding the Star Princess fire and death of cruise passenger Richard Liffridge. The family of the deceased cruise passenger are filing a wrongful death lawsuit against the cruise line as well as are lobbying for legislation to make cruise ships safer.



Siblings Take on Cruise Line after Father’s Death

By Jeff Brown
Staff writer
The Dover Post

Richard Liffridge’s children intend to make sure no other family endures the heartbreak they must bear for the rest of their lives.

An Air Force tech sergeant who retired at Dover Air Force Base, Liffridge and his wife Vicky were on a Caribbean cruise March 23 when a fire broke out aboard their ship, the Star Princess. The fire damaged or destroyed 283 cabins – and killed Liffridge.

Shortly thereafter, Phil Liffridge and his sisters, Michele Norris and Doris Henry, all of Dover, and Lynnette Hudson of Bear, set up the non-profit Richard Liffridge Foundation in honor of their father. Their goal is to bring about tougher fire regulations aboard cruise ships and to lobby for legislation to make cruise ships safer.

They also plan a wrongful death lawsuit against Princess Cruises, owners of the Bahamas-registered Star Princess.

The official report on the fire, published Oct. 23 by the British Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB), placed the blame on an unknown smoker whose cigarette ignited plastic partitions and furniture on one of the stateroom balconies surrounding the exterior of the ship. While room sprinklers kept the blaze from spreading to the interior, choking black smoke from the burning plastic blocked inboard escape routes.

Awakened by fire alarms shortly after 3 a.m., Liffridge and Vicky struggled out of their stateroom and into a hallway, but failed to reach fresh air. Vicky was one of 13 people later treated for smoke inhalation.

Liffridge succumbed to the toxic fumes, his death at first attributed to a heart attack.

The picture of health
“I said, ‘Yeah, right,” Henry said of the news her father had died of a coronary.

At the age of 72, Liffridge had the look and energy of a man 10 years his junior. He was self-conscious about his weight, so he ate properly and exercised regularly at a basement gym in his Locust Grove, Ga., home, Henry said. Her father enjoyed traveling and he and Vicki rarely missed the chance to socialize with their friends. The cruise was a belated celebration of Liffridge’s birthday, which had taken place March 11.

“He was at the peak of his life,” Henry said.

“Who would have thought he’d be celebrating his birthday and then have so much tragedy?” Norris said.

Although they stop short of accusing the cruise line of deliberate insensitivity, Liffridge’s children feel the Princess Cruise officials were slow to react to the aftermath of the tragedy. Even though Hudson was listed as an emergency contact, no one from the cruise line called to notify her, they said. They found out about their father’s death when their distraught stepmother telephoned from Jamaica, seven hours after the fire was extinguished.

The cruise line also seemed more interested in smoothing things over with survivors whose vacations had been interrupted by the fire than with helping her family, Hudson said.

“They were focused on taking care of people who were inconvenienced, not on the family of the man who died,” Hudson said.

While the cruise line made sure the Star Princess’ passengers got a rebate for the incomplete cruise and a discount on their next excursion, the Liffridge family had to pay to have their father’s remains returned to the United States, Hudson said.

A start, but more needs to be done
Cruise lines, including Princess, started replacing plastic balcony dividers and furniture soon after the Star Princess fire and are acting on additional MAIB recommendations that include posting extra fire watches aboard ship. The United Nations-sponsored International Maritime Organization also is set to discuss new balcony fire safety requirements this December.

But more needs to be done, according to the Liffridge family.

Rep. Mike Castle, R-Del., is co-sponsoring legislation in Congress that would require cruise ships calling at U.S. ports to report incidents involving U.S. citizens within four hours. Working through the Liffridge Foundation, the siblings also hope to influence Congress to ban smoking on cruise ships, except within designated areas.

Despite these efforts, Hudson and her sisters and brother know they’re just reacting to an industry that failed to be proactive.

And although they realize their lobbying efforts and the wrongful death lawsuit, if successful, won’t bring their father back, it may help him rest easier.

“Our focus is to make sure this never happens again,” Hudson said.

“No amount of money will replace our loss,” she added. “The main thing for us is that another family does not have to go through this like we did.”

November 2, 2006

Cruise Ship Passenger Missing

Another cruise ship passenger was reported missing today. A 73 year old British passenger was on a Celebrity Cruise ship off of Portugal and did not disembark in the Medeira, Portugal port.

A crew member reported the cruise passenger disappearance when the man had not used his cabin. He was travelling alone.

Celebrity said that the captain immediately reversed the course and began an search as well as notified British, Portuguese and Bahamian officials, as well as the FBI. The ship continued its 14 night trans-Atlantic cruise from Barcelona, Spain to Miami.

Missing persons at sea require a search and rescue. Once a person is reported missing the shipping company has a duty to do a reasonable search and rescue. If the person is not quickly found on board the vessel, then the vessel should return to the last location at sea when the person was seen. The failure to perform a reasonable search and rescue can render the shipping company liable for the disappearance of the person.

We have extensive experience handling cruise ship passenger disappearance cases. We recommend that anyone about to go on a cruise take the Cruise S.O.S. Card with them. The Cruise S.O.S. Card includes important information including emergency steps to take incase of accident, crime or disappearance of you or your family members when you are on a cruise.

November 1, 2006

Where A Husband And Wife Sued A Cruise Line, Its Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Partial Summary Judgment Motion Was Granted Because The Characteristics Of The Parties' Tickets Were Such That Terms And Conditions Were Conspicuous, They Were On Notice That A Limitation

MARIANNE PAUL AND ROBERT PAUL, Plaintiffs, v. HOLLAND AMERICA LINE, INC., et al., Defendants.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81527
November 6, 2006, Decided

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiffs, a husband and wife, sued defendant cruise line, alleging negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and loss of consortium, after the wife required heart surgery following a cruise. They alleged that her condition was caused by an echovirus that she contracted on-board. The cruise line sought partial summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.

OVERVIEW: The cruise line requested an order that recovery be limited to 46,666 Special Drawing Rights (SDR) pursuant to the Athens Convention, and that the husband's loss of consortium claim be dismissed. The federal district court granted the motion, finding that the physical characteristics of plaintiffs' ticket were such that the terms and conditions were sufficiently conspicuous to plaintiffs. Further, the provision at issue identified the relevant limitation of 46,666 SDRs, meaning that plaintiffs needed only visit the International Monetary Fund website to view the current value of an SDR in American dollars. Moreover, the language that was provided was sufficient to have put them on notice of the liability limitation. Furthermore, there was nothing confusing about the contract's reference to the Athens Convention as well as to the laws of the U.S. Although neither the Convention nor the 1976 Protocol had been ratified by the U.S., so they carried no force of law, the limitation provision had force because it was properly incorporated into the contract. Finally, loss of consortium claims were not cognizable in cases that were governed by maritime law.

OUTCOME: The district court granted the cruise line's motion for partial summary judgment.

Trial Court Erred In Granting Summary Judgment In The Employee's Favor In His Negligence Suit Against His Employer Under The Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.S. App. � 688(A), And General Maritime Law As The Employer Was Entitled To Offset Disability Benefits It Had

MATTHEW WENDELBOE VERSUS SEARIVER MARITIME, INC.
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FIRST CIRCUIT
2006 La. App. LEXIS 2472
November 3, 2006, Judgment Rendered

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellee employee sued appellant employer for negligence and sought damages under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.S. App. � 688(a), and general maritime law. The employer sought an offset for disability benefits the employee had received. The 19th Judicial District Court of East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, held that the disability plan was a fringe benefit, and the employer was not entitled to a reduction. The employer appealed.

OVERVIEW: On review, the employer contended the trial court erred in granting the employee's motion for summary judgment, thus shielding his disability benefits from offset by the employer against any tort litigation recovery he might have received. The appellate court agreed, finding first that the employer was both the alleged tortfeasor and the would-be "independent" source that funded the disability plan. As these conceptual identities were merged in the same entity, there was no true collateral source here. The inquiry hinged on the nature of the plan at issue, and the intent of the employer through the plan to avoid a double payment for both benefits and tort recovery was what controlled. The language of 45 U.S.C.S. � 55 clearly aimed to provide a means by which employees could receive employer assistance and compensation for their injuries and employers had an incentive to provide such benefits while protecting themselves against double payment obligations. In the instant case, the employer's plan clearly expressed its intent to do so, in accordance with the statute.

OUTCOME: The judgment was reversed, and judgment was rendered in favor of the employer.

A Seaman Who Fraudulently Concealed Preexisting Back And Mental Health Problems On His Application To Work As A Deckhand On An Oceangoing Tug Was Properly Denied Maintenance And Cure Benefits Under The Mccorpen Rule But Properly Awarded Damages For Medica

JON ANTHONY JAUCH, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus NAUTICAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 27879
November 9, 2006, Filed

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff, an American seaman, brought an action under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.S. app. § 688, against defendant, an American employer, for personal injuries allegedly occurring while the seaman was working aboard one of the employer's vessels. The employer filed an opposed motion to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1404(a) and an alternate motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3).

OVERVIEW: On his employment application to work as a deckhand on an oceangoing tug, the seaman concealed his preexisting back injury and lengthy history of psychiatric treatment. The district court found he had not been instructed in the proper procedure for helping to lower a johnboat to a lower deck, which caused him to suffer a back injury that eventually required surgery, but that he also had not asked how to perform the task and had not remained attentive while performing it. On appeal, the court held that, because the seaman had fraudulently concealed his preexisting medical conditions, the district court correctly applied the McCorpen rule in denying his claim for maintenance and cure benefits. The district court's apportionment of equal fault was not clearly erroneous. The award of damages for medical expenses under the Jones Act was independent of the seaman's maintenance and cure claim. However, the record was insufficient for the court to review whether the district court had correctly calculated damages or had properly denied prejudgment interest.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed the district court's order denying the seaman's claim for maintenance and cure and apportioning fault equally between the seaman and the employer, vacated the award of past medical expenses and the denial of prejudgment interest, and remanded to allow the district court to consider the claims further and to provide more detailed analysis and reasons for its decisions.

Cruise Line's Summary Judgment Motion Should Have Been Granted In Passenger's Claim Based On Assault Which Occurred 10 Minutes After Passenger Disembarked After A Four-Hour Cruise. Assault Did Not Occur On Navigable Water, And Was Not Caused By A Vessel O

Mark Hayes, Plaintiff-Respondent, v The City of New York, et al., Defendants, Skyline Cruise Line, Inc., Defendant-Appellant.
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT
2006 NY Slip Op 7962; 2006 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13114
November 2, 2006, Decided

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff passenger on a cruise boat sued defendant cruise line company, seeking damages for injuries sustained when the passenger was assaulted. The Supreme Court, Bronx County (New York), denied the cruise line's summary judgment motion. The cruise line appealed.

OVERVIEW: The passenger witnessed an altercation between other passengers during the four-hour cruise. Ten minutes after disembarking after the cruise ended, the passenger was assaulted by one of the individuals involved in the altercation aboard the boat. The appellate court found that neither the "location" nor the "connection with maritime activity" tests were satisfied such as to extend maritime jurisdiction to the injuries. The assault did not occur on navigable water, and was not caused by a vessel on navigable water. An assault on a pier was not the kind of incident that had a potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce or a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity. The cruise line's duty of care as a common carrier terminated upon the passenger's safe disembarkation from the vessel. There was no evidence that what transpired during the cruise should have put the cruise line on notice that there was a risk of assault to the passenger. The injuries occurred at a substantial distance and time away from the vessel in an area leased and controlled by a nonparty while the passenger was moving at his own pace and under his own control.

OUTCOME: The judgment was reversed, and the motion was granted.

District Court Granted Summary Judgment To Cruise Line In Passenger Vessel Act Suit To Recover Damages For Personal Injuries Passenger Sustained After Being Bitten By Snake On Shore Excursion; Even If Exculpatory Clause Did Not Apply, Passenger Failed To

KIM ISBELL, Plaintiff, vs. CARNIVAL CORPORATION, d/b/a and/or f/k/a CARNIVAL CRUISE LINES, INC., Defendant.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, MIAMI DIVISION
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84452
November 20, 2006, Decided

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff passenger filed suit pursuant to the Passenger Vessel Act, 46 U.S.C.S. � 3501 et seq., against defendant cruise line, seeking to recover damages for personal injuries that the passenger suffered during a shore excursion that was operated by a third-party. The claim asserted by the passenger was one of negligence. The cruise line moved for summary judgment.

OVERVIEW: The passenger went on a shore excursion that was recommended by the cruise line. The excursion involved floating down a river in a rain forest, through caves, while on an inner tube. The passenger was bitten by a snake and was administered antivenin at a medical facility. The passenger blamed the snake bite for a heart attack that she suffered one month later. In granting summary judgment to the cruise line, the court first held that the passenger's ticket contained an exculpatory clause relieving the cruise line of liability for incidents that occurred on shore excursions operated by third-parties. However, even if the exculpatory clause was not applicable due to statements made by the cruise line as to the safety of the rain forest excursion, the passenger failed to show that the cruise line breached any duty to warn the passenger about the possibility of snake bites, particularly where the danger of encountering a dangerous animal in the jungle was apparent and obvious. Further, the passenger failed to show that the snake bite caused her heart attack, as the passenger's own doctor found no manifestations that appeared to be the result of the bite or the antivenin.

OUTCOME: The court granted the cruise line's motion for summary judgment

Boat Seller And A Contractor Were Not Entitled To Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6) Dismissal Of Yacht Owners' Suit For Injuries Allegedly Sustained From The Improper Installation Of A Davit On Their Yacht. The Suit Was Timely Filed Under The Maritime Limitations

JOSEPH AND MARIA BURKE, Plaintiffs, VERSUS QUICK LIFT, INC., AND STATEN ISLAND BOAT SALES, Defendants. QUICK LIFT, INC., Third-Party Plaintiff, VERSUS CARVER BOAT CORPORATION, LLC, Third-Party Defendant.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83394
November 16, 2006, Decided

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiffs owners sued defendants, a boat seller and a contractor, alleging injuries from the failure to properly install a piece of equipment on a yacht they purchased. The contractor filed a third-party claim, impleading third-party defendant boat manufacturer. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The manufacturer moved to dismiss the third-party complaint and for the imposition of sanctions on the contractor.

OVERVIEW: The seller hired the contractor to install a boat-lift davit on the owner's yacht. While on a voyage, the davit malfunctioned and injured the owners. The court found that admiralty jurisdiction existed over the owners' tort claim because the complaint alleged facts showing that (1) the alleged tort occurred on or over navigable waters, (2) the incident had a potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce, and (3) the conduct bore a substantial relationship to a traditional maritime activity. Defendants sought dismissal of the complaint on the basis that it was time-barred. The court denied the motion, finding that a three year statute of limitations applied, that the cause of action accrued at the discovery of the underlying injury, and thus, that the complaint was timely because it was filed shortly after the davit allegedly malfunctioned and injured the owners. The court also denied the manufacturer's motion to dismiss the third-party claim because it stated a viable claim upon which the manufacturer could be liable either to the owners or to the contractor. As the third-party complaint stated a viable cause of action, the court denied the manufacturer's motion for sanctions.

OUTCOME: The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. In addition, the court denied the manufacturer's motion to dismiss the third-party complaint and its motion for sanctions.

In Accordance With 28 U.S.C.S. � 1333, Estate Administrators' Sea-Based Asbestos Claim Was To Be Tried Under Admiralty Jurisdiction, Applying Federal Maritime Law While Their Land-Based Claim Was To Be Tried Under Montana Law. All Claims Were To Be Trie

Willard E. Bartel and David C. Peebles, Administrators of the Estate of Charles Rich, Deceased, Plaintiffs, v. A-C Product Liability Trust, et. al, Defendants.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, WESTERN DIVISION
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82404
November 13, 2006, Opinion Filed

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff administrators of the estate of a decedent whose death was caused by exposure to asbestos sued defendant manufacturers, whose products contained asbestos. The administrators filed a demand for a jury and submitted briefs regarding choice of law.

OVERVIEW: In August, 2003, decedent was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma. He died in July, 2006. His sickness and eventual death were allegedly caused by his exposure to asbestos while he was a merchant seaman from 1945 to 1950 and while he worked as an engineer at a jet fuel refinery in Montana from 1955 to 1975. The land-based claim of injury due to asbestos at the refinery was clearly land-based and thus not subject to federal maritime substantive law. The sea-based claims were appropriately under admiralty jurisdiction and maritime law. The claim of asbestos injury at the refinery was not closely related to admiralty law, nor was it related to traditional maritime activity; therefore, substantive federal maritime law would not apply to the land-based claim. The court concluded that Montana law appropriately applied to the land-based claim because the injury occurred in Montana and Montana was the decedent's domicile for 20 years. The sea-based count was to be tried by the same jury. This would serve judicial economy, particularly since the administrators attributed the underlying injury to multiple product defendants.

OUTCOME: The sea-based claim was to be tried under the court's admiralty jurisdiction, applying federal maritime law. The land-based claim was to be tried under Montana law. All claims were to be tried before a single jury.

District Court Erred By Granting Summary Judgment For Corporation On Seaman's Claim For Maintenance And Cure When He Presented Sufficient Evidence From Which A Reasonable Jury Could Find That He Injured His Knee During His Shift As Fire Watch Aboard Vesse

EDDISON C. CAMACHO, a seaman, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ICICLE SEAFOODS,
INC., an Alaska corporation; NORTHERN VICTOR F/V, a vessel, her engines,
equipment, tackle and appurtenances, In Rem; EVENING STAR INC, Defendants
- Appellees.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 27687
November 7, 2006, Filed

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant seaman challenged an order from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, which granted a summary judgment of dismissal in favor of appellee corporation in the seaman's suit for recovery under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.S. app. � 688(a) and under the admiralty common law doctrines of unseaworthiness and maintenance and cure.

OVERVIEW: The seaman alleged that his injury resulted from a conspiracy by other employees, including a supervisor. On appeal, the court held that the seaman produced no evidence to support his conspiracy theory beyond his own conjecture. Absent any evidentiary support, the seaman's allegations were insufficient to defeat summary judgment on his Jones Act claim. The district court properly awarded summary judgment in favor of the corporation on the unseaworthiness claim because the seaman did not present sufficient evidence of savage and vicious acts by other crew members to support his claim. However, recovery for maintenance and cure was not predicated on the fault or negligence of a shipowner. The seaman produced evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that he sustained an injury to his knee and that the injury occurred during his shift as a fire watch aboard a vessel. The district court erred by granting summary judgment for the corporation simply because the seaman's motion in opposition did not specifically address the corporation's argument regarding the maintenance and cure issue.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Jones Act and unseaworthiness claims. The court reversed the order to the extent that it dismissed the seaman's claim for maintenance and cure and remanded that claim to the district court for trial.