What is the Jones Act?

Useful Rulings on Jones Act

Recent Rulings on Jones Act

RICHARD MACIAS VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

The Federal District Court held that the district failed to show it was an “arm of the state,” and therefore it could not rely on the California Tort Claims Act (“CTCA”) to avoid liability in federal court under the Jones Act and general maritime law.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

BRIAN RANGER VS ALAMITOS BAY YACHT CLUB

Plaintiff relies on Freeze, supra, to support his contention that he need not be a seaman as defined by the Jones Act in order to be a seaman. Freeze does so hold. Freeze does not, however, abrogate the test detailed above. Plaintiff adequately shows that he alleged he performed tasks, including preparation of the vessel in various ways, that “contribute to the function of the vessel or to the accomplishment of its mission.”

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

PENDERGAST VS HORNBLOWER FLEET LLC

Defendant also argues the first cause of action (Jones Act) fails to state a claim because Defendant was not Plaintiff's employer or the owner of the vessel. This argument has merit. See Seemann v. Coastal Environmental Group, Inc. (E.D.N.Y. 2016) 219 F. Supp. 3d 362, 367, 368 (Jones Act provides seamen injured during the course of their employment with a private right of action against their employer).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

PENDERGAST VS HORNBLOWER FLEET LLC

Defendant also argues the first cause of action (Jones Act) fails to state a claim because Defendant was not Plaintiff's employer or the owner of the vessel. This argument has merit. See Seemann v. Coastal Environmental Group, Inc. (E.D.N.Y. 2016) 219 F. Supp. 3d 362, 367, 368 (Jones Act provides seamen injured during the course of their employment with a private right of action against their employer).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MICHAEL CASTRO VS FOSS MARITIME COMPANY ET AL

Plaintiff also contends that the waiver is invalid under 45 USC § 55 (the Jones Act) because Jones Act employers may not exempt itself from liability. However, the Jones Act is not applicable to Rio Hondo who is not Plaintiff’s employer. Plaintiff conclusorily states that Rio Hondo was an “agent” and by extension, Plaintiff’s employer. Plaintiff failed to offer any evidence supporting this assertion.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BRIAN THOMPSON VS CITY OF LONG BEACH, ET AL.

Plaintiff Brian Thompson has sued the City (and Lloyd Thornburg, who is not associated with City) for injuries he suffered pursuant to the Jones Act and general maritime law. Plaintiff, an employee of Thornburg, was the Captain of the racing vessel Phaedo 3 in the 2017 Transpac race. Phaedo 3 was docked at the Pine Avenue Pier, owned by City.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JOHN LOWRY V. PORT SAN LUIS HARBOR DISTRICT

Plaintiff’s amended complaint (FAC) alleges causes of action for (1) negligence under the Jones Act (47 U.S.C. § 30104); (2) maintenance and cure; (3) unseaworthiness under the Jones Act; (4) unseaworthiness under the general maritime law (28 U.S.C. § 1333(a)); and (5) negligence under the general maritime Law. (FAC, passim.) Plaintiff alleges that on March 11, 2016, and while employed with the Port, he was injured in a fall while attempting to board a vessel moored at a pier. (FAC, ¶¶ 21, 23.)

  • Hearing

SMITH VS. FAY SERVICING

That case is distinguishable, because the plaintiff brought suit in Texas, and the only matter at issue was the venue part of a dual selection clause: Great Lakes does not dispute that under the contract and under federal law, Ramos has the right to bring his Jones Act claim in Texas state court. In fact, the Agreement expressly states that the choices provided are entirely "at the option of the EMPLOYEE."

  • Hearing

ROMAN AGUILAR VS CATALINA CLASSIC CRUISES INC ET AL

It concerned a shipowner’s duty to every seamen under the Jones Act. The plaintiff alleged that the vessel was unseaworthy. To establish negligence, the jury had to find that he was a member of the crew under the Jones Act. Lee v. Pacific Far East Line, Inc. (9th Cir. 1977) 566 F.2d 65, 67 Defendant’s duty is to exercise ordinary care to warn of any unreasonable risk of harm such as a dangerous condition known to Defendant and unknown to Plaintiff. Tradewind Transp. Co. v.

  • Hearing

JOHN LOWRY V. PORT SAN LUIS HARBOR DISTRICT

Whether or not Plaintiff is a seaman under the Jones Act is not dispositive of his causes of action that do not arise under the Jones Act, which would remain to be tried regardless of whether or not Plaintiff is found to be a seaman under the Jones Act. Two separate trials, and all that each of those trials would entail, does not promote judicial economy.

  • Hearing

JAIME A COLON VS APL MARINE SERVICES LTD

(“Defendant”) alleging violations of the Jones Act and maritime law for unseaworthiness arising from a fall that occurred on February 12, 2017. On April 23, 2019, Defendant filed a motion for a continuance of trial and all related dates because Plaintiff had undergone a multi-level lumbar fusion surgery and is expected to require 12-18 months of recovery time. Trial is set for July 25, 2019.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

LEWIS BROOKS JR VS RESOLVE MARINE GROUP

In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges three causes of action for: (1) Jones Act negligence; (2) unseaworthiness and (3) maintenance and cure. Defendant objects to certain statements in the exhibits attached to the Declaration of Lewis Brooks, Jr. (“Brooks Decl.”) in opposition to the subject motion. Overruled: 1-3 Sustained: Objections 1-3: Sustained. Inadmissible hearsay. A defendant may move to quash service of summons on the ground the court lacks personal jurisdiction. (Code Civ.

  • Hearing

JOHN LOWRY V. PORT SAN LUIS HARBOR DISTRICT

The FAC alleges causes of action for (1) negligence under the Jones Act (47 U.S.C. § 30104); (2) maintenance and cure; (3) unseaworthiness under the Jones Act; (4) unseaworthiness under the general maritime Law (28 U.S.C. § 1333(a)); and (5) negligence under the general maritime Law. (FAC, passim.) Plaintiff alleges that on March 11, 2016, and while employed with the Port, he was injured in a fall while attempting to board a vessel moored at a pier. (FAC, ¶¶ 21, 23.)

  • Hearing

HERNANDEZ VS HORNBLOWER YACHTS INC

Plaintiff has alleged causes of action which are only available to seamen under the Jones Act (46 U.S.C. § 30104) and General Maritime law. The language of the complaint appears to make out four causes of action: Jones Act negligence, Unseaworthiness, Maintenance and Cure, and negligence under General Maritime Law. The Jones Act provides sea-based employees with the right to sue their employers for injuries/illnesses arising out of their maritime employment. Chandris v. Latsis, (1995) 515 U.S. 347, 354.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

EDDY MCHENRY VS KATIES SEAFOOD MARKET LLC ET AL

Negligence and Negligence Per Se Pursuant to the Jones Act 1. Employer Plaintiff’s first cause of action is for negligence and negligence per se under the federal Jones Act, which governs certain torts arising at sea. Plaintiff argues Defendant is subject to liability under the Jones Act by virtue of the fact that Defendant was Plaintiff’s employer. (See Ribitzki v. Canmar Reading & Bates, Ltd. Partnership (9th Cir. 1997) 111 F.3d 658, 662.

  • Hearing

JOHN LOWRY AND HEATHER LOWRY V. PORT SAN LUIS HARBOR DISTRICT

Lowry’s causes of action against Defendant are: (1) Negligence under the Jones Act; (2) Maintenance and Cure; (3) Unseaworthiness under the Jones Act; (4) Unseaworthiness under the General Maritime Law (28 U.S.C. § 1333(a)); and (5) Negligence under the General Maritime Law. (Krissman Decl., Ex. A, passim.)

  • Hearing

JOHN LOWRY AND HEATHER LOWRY V. PORT SAN LUIS HARBOR DISTRICT

Lowry’s causes of action against Defendant are: (1) Negligence under the Jones Act; (2) Maintenance and Cure; (3) Unseaworthiness under the Jones Act; (4) Unseaworthiness under the General Maritime Law (28 U.S.C. § 1333(a)); and (5) Negligence under the General Maritime Law. (Krissman Decl., Ex. A, passim.)

  • Hearing

HERNANDEZ VS HORNBLOWER YACHTS INC

The Jones Act provides an exception to normal exclusivity rule. Resolution of this issue is appropriately resolved prior to presentation of any liability evidence and is thus appropriate for bifurcation. The Court recognizes that defendant has a summary judgment motion pending on this issue. In ruling on bifurcation, the Court is not pre-judging the merits of the summary judgment motion nor the Jones Act issue.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

OSBORNE VS KB INTERNATIONAL LLC

This is a Jones Act case arising out of a December 9, 2016 injury to plaintiff aboard the 116' sport fishing vessel m/v Intrepid. The complaint was filed August 9, 2017, and defendants answered October 19, 2017. ROA 1, 11. Plaintiff, who alleges he was in command of the vessel at the time, claims back and neck injuries which he believes will prevent him from working "offshore or aboard a vessel again." The case is scheduled for a CMC on January 12, 2018. ROA 6.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

OSBORNE VS KB INTERNATIONAL LLC

This is a Jones Act case arising out of a December 9, 2016 injury to plaintiff aboard the 116' sport fishing vessel m/v Intrepid. The complaint was filed August 9, 2017, and defendants answered October 19, 2017. ROA 1, 11. Plaintiff, who alleges he was in command of the vessel at the time, claims back and neck injuries which he believes will prevent him from working "offshore or aboard a vessel again." The case is scheduled for a CMC on January 12, 2018. ROA 6.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

DEBRA REES VS. HORNBLOWER FLEET, LLC ET AL

DEMURRER TO 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT Set for hearing on Thursday, December 7, 2017, Line 8, DEFENDANT HORNBLOWER FLEET, LLC, HORNBLOWER YACHTS, LLC DBA HORNBLOWER CRUISES' DEMURRER TO 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendant Hornblower Yachts, LLC and Hornblower Fleet, LLC's demurrer to the first two causes of action for unseaworthiness and negligence (Jones Act) in the first amended complaint filed by plaintiff Debra Rees is overruled as to both causes of action.

  • Hearing

DEBRA REES VS. HORNBLOWER FLEET, LLC ET AL

Rees' for unseaworthiness and negligence per the Jones Act. The injury occurred on September 20, 2013 and Ms. Rees filed this action on April 24, 2017. Federal maritime law preempts application of 10 CCR 2695.7 and Insurance Code 11583. If she can do so in good faith, Ms. Rees is given leave to amend to allege facts showing that defendants should be estopped from relying on the statute of limitations. The complaint presently does not allege conduct showing that defendants actively prevented Ms.

  • Hearing

WILLIAMS VS. COLUMBIA YACHTS CORPORATION

Plaintiffs concede they are not pursuing allegations or causes of action, as to Tim Kernan, for unseaworthiness, in rem or in personam; Jones Act negligence; or breach of implied warranties. Defendant SPINLOCK LTD.'S Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. Spinlock LTD's Objections to Dwight Ritter's Declaration are SUSTAINED. Objections to Wehr Declaration are SUSTAINED as to 6,7,8,11,14,13,15,33,40. All other objections OVERRULED Objections to Naranjo Declaration are SUSTAINED as to 23, 24.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

WILLIAMS VS. COLUMBIA YACHTS CORPORATION

Plaintiffs concede they are not pursuing allegations or causes of action, as to Tim Kernan, for unseaworthiness, in rem or in personam; Jones Act negligence; or breach of implied warranties. Defendant SPINLOCK LTD.'S Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. Spinlock LTD's Objections to Dwight Ritter's Declaration are SUSTAINED. Objections to Wehr Declaration are SUSTAINED as to 6,7,8,11,14,13,15,33,40. All other objections OVERRULED Objections to Naranjo Declaration are SUSTAINED as to 23, 24.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

WILLIAMS VS. COLUMBIA YACHTS CORPORATION

Plaintiffs concede they are not pursuing allegations or causes of action, as to Tim Kernan, for unseaworthiness, in rem or in personam; Jones Act negligence; or breach of implied warranties. Defendant SPINLOCK LTD.'S Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. Spinlock LTD's Objections to Dwight Ritter's Declaration are SUSTAINED. Objections to Wehr Declaration are SUSTAINED as to 6,7,8,11,14,13,15,33,40. All other objections OVERRULED Objections to Naranjo Declaration are SUSTAINED as to 23, 24.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

1 2     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.