Awards and Honors
Martindale Hubbell - AV rated lawyer - Best Rating Possible
Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum
AVVO Top Rated Personal Injury Attorney, 10 of 10
ATLA Top 100
Lawyers.com - Rated 5.0 out of 5.0 - Top Rating Possible
National Trial Lawyers - Top 100 Trial Lawyers
Million Dollar Advocates Forum
American Society of Legal Advocates - Top 100 - 2014
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
American Society of Legal Advocates - Top 100 - 2013
Tugboat owner is entitled to evidentiary hearing on his motion to rescind agreement settling seaman's claim based on disabling arm injury, so that owner could present motion picture evidence of seaman lifting various sorts of building materials. Russell v Puget Sound Tug & Barg Co. (1984, CA9 Wash) 737 F2d 1510.
Where injured seaman enters into settlement agreement containing "Mary Carter" provision providing that settling defendant will be remibursed to specified degree from any recovery plaintiff receives in suit against nonsettling defendant, court's discretion in approving and enforcing agreement, as well as in disclosing terms thereof to jury, is magnified, since seaman is traditional ward of admiralty; adequacy of consideration is relevant in admiralty court's scrutiny of seaman's release, and party asserting release has burden of affirmatively showing that no advantage has been taken. Wilkins v P.M.B. Systems Engineering, Inc. (1984, CA5 Tex) 741 F2d 795.
Settlement of suit for injury under traditional admiralty claim in negligence under 46 USCS Appx section 688 was improper by set-off against company's annuities and benefits plan since such settlement cannot be classified as "benefit resulting from premiums. . . paid by any of Gulf companies under any Workmen's Compensation law or similar legislation." Dupree v Gulf Oil Corp. (1971, ED Tex) 328 F Supp 480.
Motion of injured seaman to enforce alleged settlement agreement must be denied where corporate defendant challenged both existence of agreement and scope of counsel's authority to settle case, and plaintiff failed to show "meeting of the minds" sufficient to result in binding and enforceable oral settlement agreement made with either actual or apparent authority. Thompson v Continental Emsco Co. (1986, SD Tex) 629 F Supp 1160.
Settling maritime defendants' motions under state code provision for declaration of good faith settlement precluding subsequent actions for contribution and indemnity are denied and denials will not be certified for interlocutory appeal under 28 USCS section 1292, because (1) state procedural statutes governing settlement of state torts do not apply to Jones Act (46 USCS Appx section 688) and maritime actions, (2) immediate appeal will not resolve federal rule regarding settlement of multidefendant maritime actions, and (3) interests of public and injured seaman call for prompt and just resolution of claims. Daughtry v Diamond M Co. (1988, CD Cal) 693 F Supp 856.
686. Claims of minors
In action brought under 46 USCS Appx section 688, court is mindful of its obligations to protect interests of minors and in so doing, to scrutinize terms of any proposed settlement of their lawful claims. Donnarumma v Barracuda Tanker Corp. (1978, CD Cal) 79 FRD 455.
Settlement of minor-beneficiaries' claim executed by minors' natural tutrix with defendants after action to enforce minors' claim was instituted by personal representative of decedent, is invalid. Benoit v Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. (1978, La) 355 So 2d 892, on remand (La App 3d Cir) 361 So 2d 1332.to join ship. Karvelis v Constellation Lines S.A. (1986, CA2 NY) 806 F2d 49.
Jones Act - TABLE OF CONTENTS
Accident Lawyer Hawaii
Law Office of
William H. Lawson
1188 Bishop St. Suite 2902
Honolulu, HI 96813
New client hotline:
Pearl City, Aiea and Waipahu:
Main business phone:
Directions to Honolulu office
HI accident news
Court cases re:
Hawaii accident law
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".