Jones Act claim (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

Jones Act claim in California

5 California opinions name it 1 courts 1961–2022 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by California 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.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
Cosmopolitan Shipping Co. v. McAllistergreen
scotus · 1949 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
1 sentence

2020(Compare McAllister, supra, 337 U.S. at p. 791 [“only one person, firm, or corporation can be sued as 15 B.

11
Mrs. Edith Boudoin v. J. Ray McDermott & Company, Inc.green
ca5 · 1960 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
1 sentence

2020Ray McDermott & Co. (5th Cir. 1960) 281 F.2d 81, 85 (Boudoin) [same].) That duty includes “the duty to rescue [and] to take proper and efficient means to effect a rescue . . .” (Ferro v. United States Lines Co. (S.D.N.Y. 1947) 74 F.Supp. 10 250, 253-254 ), which in turn encompasses a duty to obtain “necessary assistance” for a crew member’s injuries that render the crew member “unfit” for “his or her routine duties” and that “require[] professional medical treatment.” ( 46 U.S.C. § 2303 , subd. (a); 46 C.F.R. § 4.05-1 .) Thus, the viability of plaintiff’s Jones Act claim turns solely on whethe

11
Calbeck v. Travelers Insurance Co.green
scotus · 1962 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997
2 sentences

1997(Calbeck v. Travelers Insurance Co. (1962) 370 U.S. 114, 131 [ 82 S.Ct. 1196, 1205-1206 , 8 L.Ed.2d 368 ].” (Id. at p. 982.) *221 The instant case differs from Duong in that it involves the relationship of the Jones Act to a later filed application for state workers’ compensation coverage and it involves settlement agreements. 4 CNA equates the settlement of the Jones Act claim with receipt of compensation pursuant to the Jones Act.

1997(Calbeck v. Travelers Insurance Co. (1962) 370 U.S. 114, 131 [ 82 S.Ct. 1196, 1205-1206 , 8 L.Ed.2d 368 ].” (Id. at p. 982.) *221 The instant case differs from Duong in that it involves the relationship of the Jones Act to a later filed application for state workers’ compensation coverage and it involves settlement agreements. 4 CNA equates the settlement of the Jones Act claim with receipt of compensation pursuant to the Jones Act.

11
O'Donnell v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co.green
scotus · 1943 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992
2 sentences

1992(See O’Donnell v. Great Lakes Co. (1943) 318 U.S. 36, 38-39 [ 87 L.Ed. 596, 599-600 , 63 S.Ct. 488 ].) However, while the scope of activities held to be within the course of a seaman’s employment as defined by the Jones Act is unquestionably broad, neither party to this appeal has cited a case where liability was found to exist under facts similar to those presented here.

1992(See O’Donnell v. Great Lakes Co. (1943) 318 U.S. 36, 38-39 [ 87 L.Ed. 596, 599-600 , 63 S.Ct. 488 ].) However, while the scope of activities held to be within the course of a seaman’s employment as defined by the Jones Act is unquestionably broad, neither party to this appeal has cited a case where liability was found to exist under facts similar to those presented here.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (2)

CaseCitedYears
LaPlante v. Wellcraft Marine Corp. green
calctapp · 2001
1 sentence

2022(LaPlante v. Wellcraft Marine Corp. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 282, 290 .) That is especially true with respect to the Jones Act requirement at issue here, mandating vessels engaged in coastwise trade in the country’s navigable waters be U.S.-built.

12022–2022
Lake v. Standard Fruit & Steamship Co. green
ca2 · 1950
1 sentence

1961The first argument on appeal is that the trial court erred in its instructions on the defendant’s liability under the Jones Act and the defense of assumption of risk. * These instructions are a proper statement of the applicable law (Lake v. Standard Fruit & Steamship Co. (2 Cir. 1950) 185 F.2d 354 ; Crowder v. Atchison, T. & S.F.

11961–1961

Where else courts name it

LA 63 (1965–2018) TX 38 (1987–2025) IL 12 (1980–2021) NY 8 (2000–2019) FL 5 (1980–2004) WA 5 (1997–2018) AK 5 (1990–2020) CA 5 (1961–2022) MI 4 (1986–2021) AR 3 (1976–1986) MD 2 (2011–2013) AL 2 (2009–2014) DE 2 (1972–1988) VA 2 (2003–2003)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check