46 U.S.C. § 11107
Unlawful engagements void
An engagement of a seaman contrary to a law of the United States is void. A seaman so engaged may leave the service of the vessel at any time and is entitled to recover the highest rate of wages at the port from which the seaman was engaged or the amount agreed to be given the seaman at the time of engagement, whichever is higher.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1993–2024 · leading case: Doyle v. Huntress, Inc.
Doyle v. Huntress, Inc. (2005)
“The issue presented in this interlocutory appeal is whether the 1988 codification of the maritime safety laws in Title 46 creates a cause of action for lay share fishermen under the “highest rate of wages” provision of 46 U.S.C. § 11107 , and the liability provisions of 46 U.”
Doyle v. Huntress, Inc. (2004)
“Plaintiffs claim statutory damages under a companion statute, 46 U.S.C. § 11107 (1983). Defendants oppose Plaintiffs’ motion and cross claim for summary judgment, alleging that their lay-share fishing agreements did not violate § 10601; that § 11107 creates no remedy for…”
Doyle v. Huntress, Inc. (2008)
“This decision addresses the doctrine of laches in claims for wages by seamen under 46 U.S.C. § 11107 , where the claims are meant both to compensate and to encourage compliance with the requirement in 46 U.”
Bjornsson v. U.S. Dominator, Inc. (1993)
“46 U.S.C. § 11107 Provides a Penalty for Violation of 46 U.”
Gary v. D. Agustini & Asociados, S.A. (1994)
“A seaman so engaged may leave the service of the vessel at any time, and is entitled to recover the highest rate of wages at the port from which the seaman was engaged or the amount agreed to be given the seaman at the time of engagement, whichever is higher.”
Doyle v. Huntress, Inc. (2007)
“They further claim statutory damages pursuant to 46 U.S.C. § 11107 . Plaintiffs’ complaint also included a claim for breach of contract which was voluntarily dismissed during the discovery phase of this action.”
TCW Special Credits v. Chloe Z Fishing Co. (1997)
“Fishermen hired without articles, contrary to the provisions of section 10601, may avail themselves of the protection afforded seamen by 46 U.S.C. § 11107 . Seattle-First Nat’l Bank v.”
Flores v. American Seafoods Co. (2003)
“An agreement that violates either of these requirements will trigger the application of 46 U.S.C. § 11107 , which provides that [a]n engagement of a seaman contrary to a law of the United States is void.”
Harper v. United States Seafoods LP (2002)
“46 U.S.C. § 11107 . I. HistoRical Backdrop op Written Contracts and 46 U.”
Seattle-First National Bank v. Conaway (1996)
“” 46 U.S.C. § 11107 ; see also 46 U.S.C. §§ 564 , 576 (1982).”
Cook v. Ancich (2000)
“I am not convinced that the statutory remedy under 46 U.S.C. § 11107 applies here. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: *1121 (1) The plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment (docket # 15) on negligence per se and contributory negligence is granted.”
TCW Special Credits v. F/V Kassandra Z (2003)
“, Kassandra Z’s crew, statutory wages under 46 U.S.C. § 11107 and quantum meruit damages because the chip’s former owner failed to do so prior to the arrest of the ship in 1996.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.