In Re Korean Air Lines Disaster, 117 F.3d 1477 (D.C. Cir. 1997)
In this case, arising out of the crash of the Korean Airlines flight that was shot down over Soviet air space, the court held that representatives of passengers who were killed cannot advance a claim for passengers' predeath pain and suffering. The court held that the Death of the High Seas Act applied and precluded recovery for nonpecuniary damages.
Persons reading this article from our web site may click on the citation above to read
the entire opinion.
Lewis v Brunswick Corp, 107 F.3d 1494 (11th Cir. 1997)
A recreational boat passenger died after she was thrown from the boat and then struck by the boat's propeller. The suit against the boat manufacturer was brought by her parents alleging that the death was caused by the lack of a propeller guard. A summary judgement was granted in favor of the boat manufacturer on the ground that plaintiff's claims were preempted by the Federal Boat Safety Act.
The 11th Circuit held that the Coast Guard's position rejecting the requirement for propeller guards was tantamount to a ruling that no such requirement may be imposed, and, thus state law was impliedly preempted.
Persons reading this article from our web site may click on the citation above to read the entire opinion. For previous articles on propeller guards CLICK HERE
There are other cases, such as one against Bayliner in the State of Washington, where
courts have taken this concept to an extreme by excluding testimony on design and
construction of recreational boat rails based on an affidavit of a former Coast Guard
employee that the Coast Guard had examined whether or not to regulate the design or
construction of recreational boat rails and decided not to do so. Based on this affidavit,
the court excluded any testimony regarding the suitability of the boat's rail. No
testimony was introduced by the plaintiff to show that this decision by the Coast Guard
was not based on the same type of detailed public input as in the case of propeller
guards.
Ribitzki v. Canmar Reading & Bates, 111 F.3d 658 (9th Cir. 1997)
A seaman was injured when he stepped into an open hatch while cleaning the shale pit on a drill ship. He brought suit against his employer for negligence. The court held that the employer's duty towards a seaman extends to providing a safe place to work even on the ship of a third-party over whom the employer has no control if that is where the seaman's employer sends him to work. The court held that the employer could be held to constructive notice of the dangerous work place and that this implied "a duty of reasonable inspection" which "extends to an employer who sends employees to work aboard a third-party's vessel."
The court rejected application of the "primary duty" rule, which maintains that the seaman cannot recover for an injury caused by his own failure to perform a duty imposed on him by his employment. Instead, the court held that the rule does not apply in a situation where a seaman is injured by a condition he did not create and which, in the proper exercise of his employment duties, he could not have controlled or eliminated.
Persons reading this article from our web site may click on the citation above to read the entire opinion
Home ! Search Page ! Master index ! Table of Contents for This Issue