Jones Act claim in Illinois

2021Deering, 627 F.3d at 1041-42 .

2021Deering, 627 F.3d at 1041-42 .

2005In Stephens v. Kasten, 383 Ill. 127 , 48 N.E.2d 508 (1943), this court expressly recognized the right of defendants to a jury trial in a tort action seeking money damages.

2005In Stephens v. Kasten, 383 Ill. 127 (1943), this court expressly recognized the right of defendants to a jury trial in a tort action seeking money damages.

2005Indeed, even Linton held that if the plaintiff elects to proceed with his Jones Act case "at law" in state court, "`whether he, or the defendant, would have a right to trial by jury would depend on state civil procedure.'" (Emphasis added.) Linton, 964 F.2d at 1487 , quoting Pellegrin v. International Independent Towing, No. 88-5255, slip op. at 3-4 (E.D.La.

2005Indeed, even Linton held that if the plaintiff elects to proceed with his Jones Act case "at law" in state court, "`whether he, or the defendant, would have a right to trial by jury would depend on state civil procedure.'" (Emphasis added.) Linton, 964 F.2d at 1487 , quoting Pellegrin v. International Independent Towing, No. 88-5255, slip op. at 3-4 (E.D.La.

2005As simply stated in Hutton: “Procedural rules in a Jones Act claim are governed by the forum in which the claim is filed.” Hutton, 341 Ill.

2005As simply stated in Hutton: “Procedural rules in a Jones Act claim are governed by the forum in which the claim is filed.” Hutton, 341 Ill.

2003Martin v. Heinold Commodities, Inc., 163 Ill. 2d 33 , 643 N.E.2d 734 (1994).

2003Martin v. Heinold Commodities, Inc., 163 Ill. 2d 33 , 643 N.E.2d 734 (1994).

2003Where, however, "there is diversity jurisdiction in Jones Act cases, both parties have an independent basis for a jury trial if the plaintiff has chosen to pursue his Jones Act claim through the `saving to suitors' clause in a civil action." (Emphasis in original.) Rachal, 795 F.2d at 1213 . *307 (The "saving to suitors" clause provides "district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the [s]tates, of: (1)[a]ny civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled." 28 U.S.C. § 1333

2003Where, however, “there is diversity jurisdiction in Jones Act cases, both parties have an independent basis for a jury trial if the plaintiff has chosen to pursue his Jones Act claim through the ‘saving to suitors’ clause in a civil action.” (Emphasis in original.) Rachal, 795 F.2d at 1213 .

2005Instead, the majority adopts the argument of dissenting Justice Myerscough and holds that this section "merely provides the process by which a party may advise the court of its desire for a jury trial [citation], and says nothing about whether a party is entitled to a jury trial in any given action." 217 Ill.2d at 95 , 298 Ill.

2000In order for the fourteenth amendment to be implicated, there must be some sort of “state action.” The trial court’s decision to deny defendant’s demand for a jury trial in this Jones Act case did not constitute a “state action.” See Hanks, 303 Ill.

1997(Western Stone Co. v. Whalen, 151 Ill. 472 (1894), on which defendant relies, did not involve maritime claims of unseaworthiness and maintenance and cure and is therefore inapposite.) Jury trials are allowed in these maritime cases only where they are brought pendant to a Jones Act claim for which the plaintiff/seaman has elected a jury trial.

1997(Western Stone Co. v. Whalen, 151 Ill. 472 (1894), on which defendant relies, did not involve maritime claims of unseaworthiness and maintenance and cure and is therefore inapposite.) Jury trials are allowed in these maritime cases only where they are brought pendant to a Jones Act claim for which the plaintiff/seaman has elected a jury trial.

1983App. 1981), 625 S.W.2d 69 , writ of error refused; Marine Drilling Co. v. Autin ; Williamson v. Daspit Brothers Marine Divers, Inc. (5th Cir.1964), 337 F.2d 337 ; Tipton v. Socony Mobil Oil Co. (5th Cir.1963), 315 F.2d 660 , rev'd on other grounds (1963), 375 U.S. 34 , 11 L.Ed.2d 4 , 84 S.Ct. 1 .) Also, the Committee on Pattern Jury Instructions of the Fifth Circuit's District Judges Association has incorporated this language into its recommended Jones Act instruction.

1983Ed. 2d 4 , 84 S. Ct. 1 .) Also, the Committee on Pattern Jury Instructions of the Fifth Circuit’s District Judges Association has incorporated this language into its recommended Jones Act instruction.

1983App. 1981), 625 S.W.2d 69 , writ of error refused; Marine Drilling Co. v. Autin ; Williamson v. Daspit Brothers Marine Divers, Inc. (5th Cir.1964), 337 F.2d 337 ; Tipton v. Socony Mobil Oil Co. (5th Cir.1963), 315 F.2d 660 , rev'd on other grounds (1963), 375 U.S. 34 , 11 L.Ed.2d 4 , 84 S.Ct. 1 .) Also, the Committee on Pattern Jury Instructions of the Fifth Circuit's District Judges Association has incorporated this language into its recommended Jones Act instruction.

1983App. 1981), 625 S.W.2d 69 , writ of error refused; Marine Drilling Co. v. Autin ; Williamson v. Daspit Brothers Marine Divers, Inc. (5th Cir.1964), 337 F.2d 337 ; Tipton v. Socony Mobil Oil Co. (5th Cir.1963), 315 F.2d 660 , rev'd on other grounds (1963), 375 U.S. 34 , 11 L.Ed.2d 4 , 84 S.Ct. 1 .) Also, the Committee on Pattern Jury Instructions of the Fifth Circuit's District Judges Association has incorporated this language into its recommended Jones Act instruction.

1983App. 1981), 625 S.W.2d 69 , writ of error refused; Marine Drilling Co. v. Autin ; Williamson v. Daspit Brothers Marine Divers, Inc. (5th Cir.1964), 337 F.2d 337 ; Tipton v. Socony Mobil Oil Co. (5th Cir.1963), 315 F.2d 660 , rev'd on other grounds (1963), 375 U.S. 34 , 11 L.Ed.2d 4 , 84 S.Ct. 1 .) Also, the Committee on Pattern Jury Instructions of the Fifth Circuit's District Judges Association has incorporated this language into its recommended Jones Act instruction.

1983App.2d 644 , 270 N.E.2d 259 , aff'd (1972), 52 Ill.2d 512 , 288 N.E.2d 110 ), defendants' objections to plaintiff's instruction No. 19 have been waived. • 7 (2) The defendants next maintain that plaintiff's instruction No. 21 inaccurately defined the term "member of a crew," which phrase is synonymous with the Jones Act requirement of being a seaman.

1983App. 2d 644 , 270 N.E.2d 259 , aff'd (1972), 52 Ill. 2d 512 , 288 N.E.2d 110 ), defendants’ objections to plaintiff’s instruction No. 19 have been waived. (2) The defendants next maintain that plaintiff’s instruction No. 21 inaccurately defined the term “member of a crew,” which phrase is synonymous with the Jones Act requirement of being a seaman.

1983App. 2d 644 , 270 N.E.2d 259 , aff'd (1972), 52 Ill. 2d 512 , 288 N.E.2d 110 ), defendants’ objections to plaintiff’s instruction No. 19 have been waived. (2) The defendants next maintain that plaintiff’s instruction No. 21 inaccurately defined the term “member of a crew,” which phrase is synonymous with the Jones Act requirement of being a seaman.

1983App. 2d 644 , 270 N.E.2d 259 , aff'd (1972), 52 Ill. 2d 512 , 288 N.E.2d 110 ), defendants’ objections to plaintiff’s instruction No. 19 have been waived. (2) The defendants next maintain that plaintiff’s instruction No. 21 inaccurately defined the term “member of a crew,” which phrase is synonymous with the Jones Act requirement of being a seaman.

1980App. 3d 377 , 393 N.E.2d 1328 .) Because we have concluded that the trial court did not err in submitting the seaworthiness claim to the jury, we need not consider the propriety of submitting the Jones Act claim.

1980App. 3d 377 , 393 N.E.2d 1328 .) Because we have concluded that the trial court did not err in submitting the seaworthiness claim to the jury, we need not consider the propriety of submitting the Jones Act claim.