Clear all "New" markers Turn on extra data

Thread View Frames View Board View

Forum: BoaterTalk
Re: Potential Industry Changing Events Unfolding in WV unclefuzzy New
Re: This would almost have to get thrown out in a higher court, right? RUwet New
Re: Sht!  I guess the state supreme ct. would be the highest one they could go to, wouldn't it? RUwet New
Date: Jul 03 2008, 2:31 GMT
From: monkeywrencher

	Because this doesn't make a lot of sense. Federal courts have original jurisdiction of maritime and admiralty cases, and its very possible that the state court may dismiss the case on this very technicality. Even if the case is argued the rafting company could use the limitation act as a defense which was created to limit the liability of ship owners to the value of the vessel meaning that the plantiff could only sue for the value of the raft. In fact there is actually some precedent for this defense, see Keys Jet Ski Inc v. Kays(UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT893 F.2d 1225; 1990 U.S. App.) Here is a brief summary of the case: Appellants, owners of a jet ski, filed a complaint that sought exoneration from or limitation of liability pursuant to the Limitation of Liability Act (act), 46 U.S.C.S. § 181-188, after appellee parents of a child notified appellants that the child was killed while operating the rented jet ski. Appellees filed a motion to dismiss the limitation claim based on an argument that the act did not apply to pleasure craft accidents. The district court granted the motion to dismiss, and appellants challenged the order. The court reversed the district court because it found that the act did apply to accidents that involved pleasure craft, and remanded the complaint to the district court for additional development of facts concerning whose negligence caused the accident and whether appellants had privity or knowledge.

Add Message

Add Message