|
Home- Accident Lawyer Hawaii
General Info
What is a Personal Injury Claim? (basic)
Do I Need an Accident Lawyer?
Finding an Accident Lawyer in Hawaii
Get Legal Help at Accident Lawyer Hawaii
Maui, Kauai, Lanai & Big Island Injuries
Preparing a Claim or Case After an Injury
About Accident Lawyer Hawaii- Attorney Wm Lawson
Insurance Coverage for Injuries - Hawaii
Accidents (except MVAs)
Defective products liability - Hawaii
Ocean, boating & maritime accidents - Hawaii
Construction & equipment accidents - Hawaii
Recreational accidents - Hawaii
Electrical accidents - Hawaii
Elevator accidents - Hawaii
Explosion accidents - Hawaii
Insurance Claims and Bad Faith - Hawaii
Medical & professional malpractice - Hawaii
Dog bites, animal attacks - Hawaii
Swimming pool accidents - Hawaii
Fall accidents- Trip, slip, etc. - Hawaii
Types of Injury
Brain & Head Injuries - Hawaii
Spinal Cord Injuries- SCI - Hawaii
Catastrophic injury claims - Hawaii
Wrongful death claims - Hawaii
Broken bone injuries - Hawaii
Burn accidents (Fire or Chemical) - Hawaii
Drowning accidents - Hawaii
Disc | Disk injuries - Hawaii
Motor Vehicle Accidents
Car accidents - Hawaii
Drunk driver accidents - Hawaii
Truck and bus accidents - Hawaii
Moped and pedestrian accidents - Hawaii
Auto claims and insurance - Hawaii
Motorcycle claims & insurance - Hawaii

American Trial Lawyers Association

Consumer Lawyers Hawaii

Stanford Law School

American Bar Association

Marquis' Who's Who in the World, Who's Who in America and Who's Who in American Law
Sister sites:
Accident Lawyer Hawaii Attorney -
Car Accident Lawyer Hawaii -
Injury Lawyer Attorney Hawaii -
|
|
|
JONES ACT- TABLE OF CONTENTS
The Jones Act - Cases, Decisions and Opinions- Statutory Language
Merchant Seaman Protection and Relief 46 USCS Appx § 688 (2002) Title 46. Appendix. Shipping Chapter 18.
[Chapter 46 United States Code (USCS) Appx § 688 is commonly referred to the Jones Act. Often, the cite "46 USCS Appx § 688 " may be clarified as (The Jones Act).]
§ 688. Recovery for injury to or death of seaman
(a) Application of railway employee statutes; jurisdiction. Any seaman who shall suffer personal injury in the course of his employment may, at his election, maintain an action for damages at law, with the right of trial by jury, and in such action all statutes of the United States modifying or extending the common-law right or remedy in cases of personal injury to railway employees shall apply; and in case of the death of any seaman as a result of any such personal injury the personal representative of such seaman may maintain an action for damages at law with the right of trial by jury, and in such action all statutes of the United States conferring or regulating the right of action for death in the case of railway employees shall be applicable. Jurisdiction in such actions shall be under the court of the district in which the defendant employer resides or in which his principal office is located.
[The Jones Act provides statutory protection of injured seamen. Prior to the enactment of the Jones Act, injured offshore workers were protected by common law only. The Jones Act allows qualifying seamen the same protections afforded to U.S. railroad employees under the F.E.L.A. (Federal Employees’ Liabilities Act). The Jones Act canonized many common law maritime principles, such as maintenance and cure.]
(b) Limitation for certain aliens; applicability in lieu of other remedy.
(1) No action may be maintained under subsection (a) or under any other maritime law of the United States for maintenance and cure or for damages for the injury or death of a person who was not a citizen or permanent resident alien of the United States at the time of the incident giving rise to the action, if the incident occurred—
(A) while that person was in the employ of an enterprise engaged in the exploration, development, or production of offshore mineral or energy resources--including but not limited to drilling, mapping, surveying, diving, pipelaying, maintaining, repairing, constructing, or transporting supplies, equipment or personnel, but not including transporting those resources by a vessel constructed or adapted primarily to carry oil in bulk in the cargo spaces; and
(B) in the territorial waters or waters overlaying the continental shelf of a nation other than the United States, its territories, or possessions. As used in this paragraph, the term "continental shelf" has the meaning stated in Article I of the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf.
(2) The provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not be applicable if the person bringing the action establishes that no remedy was available to that person—
(A) under the laws of the nation asserting jurisdiction over the area in which the incident occurred; or
(B) under the laws of the nation in which, at the time of the incident, the person for whose injury or death a remedy is sought maintained citizenship or residency.
Jones Act Table of Cases
|
|

William H. Lawson
Accident Lawyer Hawaii
Century Square
1188 Bishop St. Suite 2902
Honolulu, HI 96813
New client hotline:
(808) 524-5300
Main business phone:
(808) 528-2525
Directions to Accident Lawyer Hawaii

Hawaii accident news and articles
Court cases re: Hawaii accident law
Hawaii Medical Experts- reviews and links
Medical Advances- new treatments & other developments
Important Resources
More Resources
Like our site? Trade links with us!
The Constitution Of The State Of Hawaii
Jones Act- maritime law and seaman cases
Products Liability - Hawaii Cases & Comment
Current Pacific Rim News & Articles
Recent Personal Injury and Car Accident News
In some jurisdictions, courts require a defense medical examiner to produce tax returns as a prerequisite to allowing the witness to testify against an injured claimant. See, eg, Noffke v. Perez, Sup. Ct. of Alaska No. S-12185, 2008 Westlaw 746972 (Alaska, March 21, 2008). This requirement exists because large amounts of income from insurance companies shown on the doctor's 1099's and tax returns shows a reason for bias. Unfortunately, the Hawaii courts and the LIRAB have consistently failed to provide even this minimal protection against often highly biased defense medical examiners purchased by insurance companies. A change of course is needed.
|