Call (866) 635-2689 for a free Personal Injury evaluation by attorney in your area.

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Personal Injury Law Blogs -> Cruise Ship Law

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Personal Injury Law

: Cruise Ship Law

Seaman, who worked as a bedroom/galley hand on vessels operated by his employer, was entitled, in accordance with the Jones Act, to maintenance and cure, damages for pain and suffering, and damages for economic losses where he was injured in transport bet

By Lipcon, Margulies & Alsina, P.A.

ADVERTISEMENTS

TROY DOUSE, Plaintiff-Appellee v. GLOBAL PIPELINES PLUS, et al., Defendants-Appellants
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 25530
November 1, 2007, Filed

PROCEDURAL POSTURE Appellants, an employer, an insurer, a vessel owner, and others, sought review of a judgment from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, which found that appellee seaman was entitled to maintenance and cure through the present, future maintenance and cure, past and future pain and suffering, and past and future economic losses.

OVERVIEW: Appellants contested the future economic losses award, the future medical expenses award, the past and future maintenance awards, and the past and future pain and suffering awards. They also sought a reduction of the lost wages and medical expense awards, as well as the award of prejudgment interest. On appeal, the court held that the district court's decision was not affected by any error of law or clear error of fact. The seaman worked as a bedroom/galley hand on vessels owned and operated by the employer. Having been injured in transport between two vessels, due to the negligence of one of the vessel's owners, the seaman, in accordance with the Jones Act, was entitled to the award that was rendered in his favor in the district court.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed the district court's judgment.

Full post as published by Cruise Ship Law on November 01, 2007 (boomark / email).