Jones Act Cases from Accident Lawyer Hawaii

Jones Act Cases - Seaman Cases, Decisions & Opinions

Honolulu Maritime & Ocean Injury Lawyer Bill Lawson

Law Office of William H. Lawson

What We Do at Accident Lawyer Hawaii - video Honolulu Personal Injury Attorney - Claims We Handle Personal Injury Attorney Hawaii results Honolulu Personal Injury Attorney - Call us now

Awards and Honors


AV Preeminent rated by Martindale Hubbell
Martindale Hubbell - AV rated lawyer - Best Rating Possible


Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum
Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum


AVVO Top Rated Personal Injury Attorney
AVVO Top Rated Personal Injury Attorney, 10 of 10


ATLA Top 100 Trial Lawyers
ATLA Top 100


5.0 of 5.0 top rated by Lawyers.com
Lawyers.com - Rated 5.0 out of 5.0 - Top Rating Possible


National Trial Lawyers - Top Lawyer
National Trial Lawyers - Top 100 Trial Lawyers


Million Dollar Advocates Forum
Million Dollar Advocates Forum


American Society of Legal Advocates - Top 100 - 2014
American Society of Legal Advocates - Top 100 - 2014


Marquis' Who's Who
Marquis' Who's Who in the World, Who's Who in America and Who's Who in American Law


AVVO Clients' Choice Personal Injury Lawyer
AVVO Clients' Choice Personal Injury Lawyer


American Society of Legal Advocates - Top 100 - 2013
American Society of Legal Advocates - Top 100 - 2013



Jones Act - Table of Contents

The Jones Act - Cases, Decisions and Opinions

VII. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - E. Institution of Action


569. Service of process

Where accident for which damages are claimed under 46 USCS Appx section 688 occurred within territorial limits of Illinois, service of federal process may be made in manner prescribed by Illinois statute. Frase v Columbia Transp. Co. (1957, DC Ill) 158 F Supp 858.

Presence of master of vessel touching at Pittsburgh was not such as to make him appropriate agent to receive service of process so as to establish jurisdiction over transitory tort unrelated to activities of master within state of Pennsylvania. Leith v Oil Transport Co. (1962, WD Pa) 210 F Supp 877, affd (CA3 Pa) 321 F2d 591 (disagreed with Pure Oil Co. v Suarez (CA5 Fla) 346 F2d 890, affd 384 US 202, 16 L Ed 2d 474, 86 S Ct 1394).

State court had jurisdiction under 46 USCS Appx section 688 where service was had on steamship company, by delivering summons to its manager in city where it maintained an office and transacted its business. Winfield v United Fruit Co. (1933) 135 Cal App Supp 791, 24 P2d 247, 1933 AMC 1223.


570. Securing costs

28 USCS section 1916 is applicable to action under 46 USCS Appx section 688, and on reversal of judgment for defendant, with remand for new trial, clerk may be compelled to issue mandate without prepayment of costs. Grant v United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp. (1928, CA2 NY) 24 F2d 812, 1928 AMC 629.

Seaman suing under 46 USCS Appx section 688 for personal injuries caused by failure to furnish safe place to work, must give bond for costs and fees, no Safety Appliance Act being involved. The Bennington (1925, DC Ohio) 10 F2d 799.

Stevedore as "seaman" is not required to secure costs in suit under 46 USCS Appx section 688. Fletcher v Lancaster S.S. Corp. (1935, DC NY) 11 F Supp 704, 1935 AMC 784.

For action by seaman for personal injuries to come within 28 USCS section 1916, prescribing cases in which seaman is exempt from necessity to file security or prepay fees, action must be based upon law for health and safety of seaman; 46 USCS Appx section 688 is such law. Di Stefano v Ropner & Co. (1944, DC NY) 57 F Supp 517, 1944 AMC 1106.

Seaman was not entitled to dismiss suit for negligence under 46 USCS Appx section 688 in which he had not paid costs where he elected to proceed with prior suit in admiralty for negligence. Stalker v Southeastern Oil Delaware, Inc. (1951, DC Del) 103 F Supp 436.

Policy of 46 USCS Appx section 688 and of other laws designed for protection of seamen and to compensate them for injuries sustained in course of their employment should not be thwarted by indirection, as by requiring seaman to furnish bond for costs or else forego compensation. Ganem v Bernuth Lembcke Co. (1948, City Ct) 82 NYS2d 777.


571. Attachment of vessel

Action in personam in admiralty under 46 USCS Appx section 688 may be commenced and maintained in district in which defendant employer does not reside and in which his principal office is not located, by attaching defendant's property and compelling his appearance by writ of foreign attachment, under admiralty rules of venue; phrase "such actions" in venue provision of 46 USCS Appx section 688 has reference to actions on law side of federal courts. Brown v C. D. Mallory & Co. (1941, CA3 Pa) 122 F2d 98.

Proceeding in foreign attachment is not proceeding in rem and may be brought where no lien exists against vessel. The Frieda (1937, DC Pa) 1937 AMC 227.

In action under 46 USCS Appx section 688, right of foreign attachment was not authorized to be issued, and no jurisdiction over defendant corporation, served by foreign attachment, was obtained. The M. E. Farr (1940, DC NY) 38 F Supp 8, 1941 AMC 330.

Jones Act - TABLE OF CONTENTS


Facebook Company page for Accident Lawyer Hawaii - William H. Lawson LinkedIn Company page for Top Honolulu Personal Injury Attorney William H. Lawson Google+ page for Bill Lawson - HI's Best PI Law Firm




Accident Lawyer Hawaii

Law Office of
William H. Lawson

Century Square
1188 Bishop St. Suite 2902
Honolulu, HI 96813


New client hotline:
(808) 524-5300


Pearl City, Aiea and Waipahu:
(808) 671-7600


Main business phone:
(808) 528-2525


Directions to Honolulu office


Get a free consultation


HI accident news
and articles


Court cases re:
Hawaii accident law


Lawson Law
Scholarship 2017





Products Liability - Cases & Comment



Jones Act- maritime law and seaman cases



The Constitution Of The State Of Hawaii





Recent Personal Injury and Car Accident News


In the case of Tracey v. Solesky, 427 Md. 627, 50 A.3d 1075 (Md., 2012), the Court of Appeals of Maryland held that pit bull owners and harborers have strict liability for attacks on humans by their dogs. Massachusettes had previously established a similar policy. Cute pit bulls? Not hardly. Historically the dogs were bred to be weapons. They regularly maim and kill. Some courts are finally holding that owners and harborers of this particular breed are required to compensate their victims when their pit bulls wrongfully injure or kill - without the traditional "one free bite".










Choose one of the 4 menus below:



There is NO CHARGE for sending your case information to our law firm. The information provided on this website is preliminary and informational ONLY. It is not legal advice. The use of our webpages does not establish an attorney-client relationship. This website is copyright 1999-2017 and the contents of this website are the property of Personal Injury Attorney William H Lawson. The Terms and Conditions of Use for this website and our Privacy Policy are available here for your consideration. All rights reserved.

Jones Act Cases - Decisions - Opinions

We thank you for visiting our site!