Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc.

Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc., 531 U.S. 438 (2001), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving an injunction under the Limitation of Liability Act and whether a district court acted properly in dissolving it.

Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc.
Argued November 29, 2000
Decided February 21, 2001
Full case nameJames F. Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine Incorporated
Citations531 U.S. 438 (more)
121 S. Ct. 993; 148 L. Ed. 2d 931
Case history
PriorOn Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Holding
A District Court did not abuse discretion when it dissolved an injunction under the LLA, which prevented a seaman from suing a vessel owner in state court.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Case opinion
MajorityO'Connor, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
Limitation of Liability Act

Background

In 1998, James F. Lewis, a deckhand aboard a ship owned by Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc., claimed that he was injured when he tripped over a wire on the boat. Lewis then sued Lewis & Clark in Illinois County Court, for personal injuries claiming negligence under the Jones Act. Lewis & Clark had already filed a complaint for exoneration from, or limitation of, liability in the District Court under the Limitation of Liability Act (Act). Subsequently, the court approved a surety bond of $450,000, representing Lewis & Clark's interest in the vessel, ordered that any claim related to the incident be filed with the court within a specified period, and enjoined the filing or prosecution of any suits related to the incident. The injunction prevented Lewis from litigating his personal injury claims in state court and he moved to dissolve it. Ultimately, the court dissolved the injunction. The Eight Circuit Court of Appeals reversed.[1]

Opinion of the Court

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the unanimous opinion of the Court which reversed the Eighth Circuit's decision.[2] The Court held that because state courts may adjudicate claims like Lewis' against vessel owners so long as the owner's right to seek limitation of liability is protected, the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the District Court's decision to dissolve the injunction. Writing for the Court, Justice O'Connor rejected the respondent's proposal to make "run of the mill personal injury actions involving vessels a matter of exclusive federal jurisdiction except where the claimant happens to seek a jury trial."[3]

gollark: go_concurrency_primitives_irl
gollark: Oh, I see, that APIARY literally made it into a busy loop.
gollark: Which is an amazing example of concurrency.
gollark: Except then the awful go program I use to proxy websockets consumes all of *two* cores.
gollark: The CPU usage is fine when someone is connected.

See also

References
  1. Lewis vs. Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc., 531 U.S. 438, 442-44 (2001).
  2. 531 U.S. 438 at 449.
  3. 531 U.S. 438 at 456.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.