Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
P worked as a deckhand aboard the M/V Karen Michelle, owned by D. P claims that he was injured when he tripped over a wire and hurt his back. P sued D in state court claiming negligence under the Jones Act, unseaworthiness, and maintenance and cure. P did not demand a jury trial in state court. D had already filed a complaint for exoneration from, or limitation of, liability in federal court pursuant to the Limitation of Liability Act. D had already filed a complaint for exoneration from, or limitation of, liability in federal court pursuant to the Limitation of Liability Act (Limitation Act or Act), 46 U.S.C. App. § 181 et seq. The District Court entered an order approving a surety bond of $450,000, representing D's interest in the vessel. The court ordered that any person with a claim for the events of March 17, 1998, file a claim with the court within a specified period. The court then enjoined P from the filing or prosecution of any suits against D related to the incident. P averred that he was the sole claimant, waived any claim of res judicata concerning limited liability based on a state court judgment; stipulated that D could relitigate issues relating to the limitation of liability in District Court and that the value of his claim was less than the value of the limitation fund, recanting his earlier allegation that his claim exceeded the vessel's value. The District Court dissolved the restraining order. It held that the statute that confers exclusive jurisdiction over admiralty and maritime claims to federal courts contains a clause that saves to suitors 'all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled.' The District Court found two exceptions to exclusive federal jurisdiction under which a claimant is allowed to litigate his claim in state court. The first is where the value of the limitation fund exceeds the total value of all claims asserted against the vessel owner. The second is where a single claimant brings an action against the vessel owner seeking damages in excess of the value of the vessel. The court concluded that it should dissolve the injunction in this case because the petitioner met the limited fund exception and probably met the single claimant exception as well. The Court of Appeals held that the District Court abused its discretion in dissolving the injunction. The court concluded that D had a right to seek exoneration from liability, not merely limitation of liability, in federal court. Because P did not request a trial by jury, he had not sought a saved remedy in state court. P appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co