Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
19 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1959–2023 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Barry Brister and Karen Brister, Cross-Appellees v. A.W.I., Inc., Cross-Appellantsgreen2 sentences2022See Rigdon Marine Corp. v. Roberts, 270 S.W.3d 220, 227 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, pet. denied); see also Brister v. A.W.I., Inc., 946 F.2d 350, 355 (5th Cir. 1991) (“A shipowner has an absolute nondelegable duty to provide a seaworthy vessel.”). 2007The charge also properly informed the jury that the causation burden for the Jones Act claim was “legal cause” while the causation burden for the unseaworthiness claim was “proximate cause.” See Brister, 946 F.2d at 354-55 (contrasting liberal causation standard under Jones Act with more demanding proximate causation standard for unseaworthiness claim). | 2 | 2 |
Yamaha Motor Corp., USA v. Calhoungreen2 sentences2006See Yamaha, 516 U.S. at 211 , 116 S.Ct. 619 . 2006See Yamaha, 516 U.S. at 211 , 116 S.Ct. 619 . | 2 | 2 |
Chandris, Inc. v. Latsisgreen2 sentences2023See Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 347, 354 (1995). 2012Id. | 1 | 2 |
Bradford McPhillamy v. Brown & Root, Inc.green2 sentences1990When a recovery is based on both a Jones Act claim and an unseaworthiness claim, the plaintiff is not entitled to any prejudgment interest "unless the jury apportions the damages between the Jones Act claim and the unseaworthiness claim." McPhillamy v. Brown & Root, Inc., 810 F.2d 529, 531-32 (5th Cir.1987). 1990When a recovery is based on both a Jones Act claim and an unseaworthiness claim, the plaintiff is not entitled to any prejudgment interest “unless the jury apportions the damages between the Jones Act claim and the unseaworthiness claim.” McPhillamy v. Brown & Root, Inc., 810 F.2d 529, 531-32 (5th Cir.1987). | 1 | 2 |
Rigdon Marine Corp. v. Robertsgreen1 sentence2022See Rigdon Marine Corp. v. Roberts, 270 S.W.3d 220, 227 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, pet. denied); see also Brister v. A.W.I., Inc., 946 F.2d 350, 355 (5th Cir. 1991) (“A shipowner has an absolute nondelegable duty to provide a seaworthy vessel.”). | 1 | 1 |
Offshore Pipelines, Inc. v. Schooleygreen1 sentence2016See id. (“Because the defendant’s duty to provide a seaworthy vessel is completely independent of its duty to exercise reasonable care, the plaintiff does not have to prove the defendant was negligent.”). | 1 | 1 |
Seas Shipping Co. v. Sierackired1 sentence2014See, e.g., Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U.S. 85 (1946). | 1 | 1 |
Martino Lieggi v. Maritime Company of the Philippines, \M/v Philippine Rizalgreen1 sentence2014Co. of Phil., 667 F.2d 324, 326 (2nd Cir. 1981). | 1 | 1 |
Sloan v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2012See Sloan v. United States, 603 F.Supp.2d 798, 811 (E.D.Pa.2009) (evaluating, in suit brought under PVA and SAA against United States as vessel owner, seaman’s unseaworthiness claims arising from assault and emotional abuse by fellow crewman onboard vessel); see also Len v. American Overseas Marine Corp., 171 Fed.App’x. 489, 492 n. 2 (5th Cir.2006) (recognizing that SAA provides remedy against United States as vessel owner for seaman’s claim of retaliatory discharge by vessel operator). | 1 | 1 |
Johnny C. Colburn, Cross-Appellant v. Bunge Towing, Inc., and M/v Terry K, Cross-Appelleesgreen2 sentences1994It has ruled that "When a damage award is based on a jury verdict finding both Jones Act negligence and unseaworthiness, without providing `any basis for determining which *797 portion of the damage award, if any, is attributable to unseaworthiness rather than Jones Act negligence, it is impermissible to award prejudgment interest.'" Colburn v. Bunge Towing, Inc., 883 F.2d 372, 378 (5th Cir. 1989). 1994It has ruled that “When a damage award is based on a jury verdict finding both Jones Act negligence and unseaworthiness, without providing ‘any basis for determining which portion of the damage award, if any, is attributable to unseaworthiness rather than Jones Act negligence, it is impermissible to award prejudgment interest.’” Colburn v. Bunge Towing, Inc., 883 F.2d 372, 378 (5th Cir.1989). | 1 | 1 |
McAllister v. Magnolia Petroleum Co.green1 sentence1987See McAllister, 290 S.W.2d at 316 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Reviea v. Marine Drilling Co.
green
2 sentences1994Downen, 846 S.W.2d at 509 ; Reviea, 800 S.W.2d at 255 . 1993Id. | 2 | 1993–1994 |
Downen v. Texas Gulf Shrimp Co.
green
1 sentence1994Downen, 846 S.W.2d at 509 ; Reviea, 800 S.W.2d at 255 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Miles v. Apex Marine Corp.
green
2 sentences1993The United States Supreme Court ultimately held that since “nonpecuniary” damages, such as those for loss of society, were not made available under the Jones Act, they should not be made available under general maritime law. 498 U.S. at 31-33 , 111 S.Ct. at 325-26 . 1993The United States Supreme Court ultimately held that since “nonpecuniary” damages, such as those for loss of society, were not made available under the Jones Act, they should not be made available under general maritime law. 498 U.S. at 31-33 , 111 S.Ct. at 325-26 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Mitchell v. Trawler Racer, Inc.
green
2 sentences1990Mitchell, 362 U.S. at 548 , 80 S.Ct. at 932 ; Mahnich v. Southern S.S. 1990Mitchell, 362 U.S. at 548 , 80 S.Ct. at 932 ; Mahnich v. Southern S.S. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
McAllister v. Magnolia Petroleum Co.
green
2 sentences1987Id. at 225 , 78 S.Ct. at 1204 . 1987Id. at 225 , 78 S.Ct. at 1204 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Dallas Railway & Terminal Company v. Oehler
green
2 sentences1981Dallas Railway and Terminal Co. v. Oehler, 156 Tex. 488 , 296 S.W.2d 757 (1956). *74 Appellant asserts that he is entitled to recover under the unseaworthiness doctrine even though the jury found he was not a seaman. 1981Dallas Railway and Terminal Co. v. Oehler, 156 Tex. 488 , 296 S.W.2d 757 (1956). *74 Appellant asserts that he is entitled to recover under the unseaworthiness doctrine even though the jury found he was not a seaman. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Mahnich v. Southern Steamship Co.
green
2 sentences1959In Daniels v. Pacific-Atlantic Steamship Co., D.C.E.D.N.Y.1954, 120 F. Supp. 96, 99 , the Court stated: “The weight of authority is that an injury caused by slipping on a spot of oil or other matter of a transitory nature in and of itself does not support a cause of action for damages for unseaworthiness.” See also McDonald v. Dingwall Shipping Company, D.C.S.D.Tex.1954, 135 F.Supp. 374, 376 , in which the Court stated: “The cases upon which the Libelant places principal reliance, Pope & Talbot, Inc., v. Hawn [ 346 U.S. 406 , 74 S.Ct. 202 , 98 L.Ed. 143 ], supra; Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 1959In Daniels v. Pacific-Atlantic Steamship Co., D.C.E.D.N.Y.1954, 120 F. Supp. 96, 99 , the Court stated: “The weight of authority is that an injury caused by slipping on a spot of oil or other matter of a transitory nature in and of itself does not support a cause of action for damages for unseaworthiness.” See also McDonald v. Dingwall Shipping Company, D.C.S.D.Tex.1954, 135 F.Supp. 374, 376 , in which the Court stated: “The cases upon which the Libelant places principal reliance, Pope & Talbot, Inc., v. Hawn [ 346 U.S. 406 , 74 S.Ct. 202 , 98 L.Ed. 143 ], supra; Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, | 1 | 1959–1959 |
Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn
green
2 sentences1959In Daniels v. Pacific-Atlantic Steamship Co., D.C.E.D.N.Y.1954, 120 F. Supp. 96, 99 , the Court stated: “The weight of authority is that an injury caused by slipping on a spot of oil or other matter of a transitory nature in and of itself does not support a cause of action for damages for unseaworthiness.” See also McDonald v. Dingwall Shipping Company, D.C.S.D.Tex.1954, 135 F.Supp. 374, 376 , in which the Court stated: “The cases upon which the Libelant places principal reliance, Pope & Talbot, Inc., v. Hawn [ 346 U.S. 406 , 74 S.Ct. 202 , 98 L.Ed. 143 ], supra; Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 1959In Daniels v. Pacific-Atlantic Steamship Co., D.C.E.D.N.Y.1954, 120 F. Supp. 96, 99 , the Court stated: “The weight of authority is that an injury caused by slipping on a spot of oil or other matter of a transitory nature in and of itself does not support a cause of action for damages for unseaworthiness.” See also McDonald v. Dingwall Shipping Company, D.C.S.D.Tex.1954, 135 F.Supp. 374, 376 , in which the Court stated: “The cases upon which the Libelant places principal reliance, Pope & Talbot, Inc., v. Hawn [ 346 U.S. 406 , 74 S.Ct. 202 , 98 L.Ed. 143 ], supra; Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, | 1 | 1959–1959 |
McDonald v. Dingwall Shipping Co.
green
1 sentence1959In Daniels v. Pacific-Atlantic Steamship Co., D.C.E.D.N.Y.1954, 120 F. Supp. 96, 99 , the Court stated: “The weight of authority is that an injury caused by slipping on a spot of oil or other matter of a transitory nature in and of itself does not support a cause of action for damages for unseaworthiness.” See also McDonald v. Dingwall Shipping Company, D.C.S.D.Tex.1954, 135 F.Supp. 374, 376 , in which the Court stated: “The cases upon which the Libelant places principal reliance, Pope & Talbot, Inc., v. Hawn [ 346 U.S. 406 , 74 S.Ct. 202 , 98 L.Ed. 143 ], supra; Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, | 1 | 1959–1959 |
Daniels v. Pacific-Atlantic S. S. Co.
green
1 sentence1959In Daniels v. Pacific-Atlantic Steamship Co., D.C.E.D.N.Y.1954, 120 F. Supp. 96, 99 , the Court stated: “The weight of authority is that an injury caused by slipping on a spot of oil or other matter of a transitory nature in and of itself does not support a cause of action for damages for unseaworthiness.” See also McDonald v. Dingwall Shipping Company, D.C.S.D.Tex.1954, 135 F.Supp. 374, 376 , in which the Court stated: “The cases upon which the Libelant places principal reliance, Pope & Talbot, Inc., v. Hawn [ 346 U.S. 406 , 74 S.Ct. 202 , 98 L.Ed. 143 ], supra; Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, | 1 | 1959–1959 |
Spero v. Steamship the Argodon
green
1 sentence1959In Daniels v. Pacific-Atlantic Steamship Co., D.C.E.D.N.Y.1954, 120 F. Supp. 96, 99 , the Court stated: “The weight of authority is that an injury caused by slipping on a spot of oil or other matter of a transitory nature in and of itself does not support a cause of action for damages for unseaworthiness.” See also McDonald v. Dingwall Shipping Company, D.C.S.D.Tex.1954, 135 F.Supp. 374, 376 , in which the Court stated: “The cases upon which the Libelant places principal reliance, Pope & Talbot, Inc., v. Hawn [ 346 U.S. 406 , 74 S.Ct. 202 , 98 L.Ed. 143 ], supra; Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, | 1 | 1959–1959 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.