Admiralty And Maritime Law

Federal maritime law governs legal disputes, such as navigation and shipping, including commerce, seamen, personal injury, towage, insurance, liens, and recreation. Federal maritime law, also known as admiralty law, also covers awards for salvaging vessels, piracy or ship hijacking.

Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution provides that cases involving maritime law are to be heard in federal courts. A plaintiff, however, pursuant to 28 USC ยง1333 may choose to file a suit in state court, but federal law will still apply in that case. Courts and the Congress seek to create a uniform law that will govern both national and international maritime issues. Current federal maritime law is composed of modern legislation, case precedents, maritime doctrines, international treaties and private contracts.

Maritime law only governs legal disputes originating on navigable waters, which include all bodies of water used for interstate and foreign commerce. This means any body of water, such as a lake or a river, within a single state is not covered by maritime law.

In the area of shipping, admiralty law applies to such issues as commercial accidents resulting in damage to vessels and cargo, injuries to seamen, and spill of hazardous material. Following an accident, litigation would arise to determine who is responsible for the lost or damaged cargo. In cases of foreign trade, the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act ("COGSA") governs. COGSA provides that a ship owner's liability is limited to $500 per container provided that the ship was in proper condition prior to departure.

One of the most complex issue that arises from maritime law cases is compensation for personal injury to passengers and seamen. This issue involves expertise of maritime law specialists. In recent years, maritime law has been increasingly applied to recreational boating accidents that occur on navigable waters. In the case of passengers of cruise ships, their legal rights arising from the negligence of the cruise ship is limited by the terms of their ticket. This means that the statute of limitations for filing a suit would be only one year, instead of three, and that notice of filing of such suit may be required in as little as six months.

Recovering compensation for personal injury is even more complicated for "seamen," defined by Jones Act as a crew member whose responsibilities meets certain requirements under the same Act. The Act governs the rights of seamen to recover personal injury compensation. The determination alone of who a "seaman" often requires consultation with a lawyer. Following the determination of whether Jones Act applies, seamen are entitled to jury trial to provide them a fair process for filing negligence claims. Should the negligent act of the employer results to the death of the seaman, the surviving family members are allowed to file suit. Moreover, personal injury litigation also delves on insurance law, adding another complex layer to the litigation and needing the expertise of specialists.

If employees do not fit the definition of "seamen" under Jones Act, they may recover compensation for personal injury under other laws, such as the Doctrine of Unseaworthiness or the law of "maintenance and cure."

Areas of Law

Asbestos Mesothelioma Law - Legal Information and Resources

Asbestos Mesothelioma

Asbestos is a fibrous mineral that, when inhaled over a long period of time, results to fatal diseases. The most common asbestos-related disease is lung cancer, followed by mesothelioma. People working in heavy industries, such as manufacturing, and seafarers, have the highest risk of being exposed to huge amounts of asbestos and being diagnosed with, or dying from, mesothelioma. In some cases, because asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral, even people who are not employed in industries using asbestos but are living in asbestos-rich areas become victims to these fatal diseases. There is also an increasing number of so-called "take-home" cases or secondary exposure cases where wives or other family members are diagnosed with mesothelioma through continuous exposure to asbestos when washing their husbands' or family members' work clothes.

In the United States, asbestos litigation, particularly involving mesothelioma cases, shows no sign of slowing down as mesothelioma victims increasingly go to court, rather than settle, to litigate their claims for damages. In addition, asbestos litigation in the United States continue to develop as new case precedents lead to new types of plaintiffs and new types of asbestos exposure. Moreover, while asbestos-related personal injury claims against companies who used asbestos in their products are stabilizing, limitations imposed on the filing of claims against trust funds and the bankruptcy filings of numerous companies have induced plaintiffs to sue peripheral defendants. Furthermore, asbestos litigation is not limited to personal injuries arising from lung cancer or mesothelioma. Asbestos litigation arising from malignancies are also gaining popularity in state courts.

One of the complications in mesothelioma litigation is the variation of laws and rules from state to state. Courts constantly revise their trial docket to ease up the burgeoning of asbestos cases. Some courts make it easier for plaintiffs' firms to file cases while other courts don't. Other courts are also found to be more kind to plaintiffs, while other courts to defendants. Moreover, because of the huge number of asbestos litigation pending in different states, courts reach different conclusions that may or may not be applicable to another state. Even the determination of jurisdiction pose difficulty that may need the expertise of an attorney who is a specialist in asbestos litigation.

Discovery in asbestos cases is known to be exhaustive as plaintiffs need to prove they have been diagnosed with mesothelioma as a result of their occupation, and that their employers used asbestos-containing materials in their products or premises. Discovery is costly and so time-consuming that most mesothelioma victims die before their cases are concluded. One of the persistent issues presented in asbestos cases is whether companies owed a duty to warn its employees of the danger of asbestos contained in their products. Decisions on this question vary from state to state, and from court to court, adding more difficulty to the already-complex litigation. Another persistent issue presented in asbestos cases is the extent of a company's liability as to a person's personal injury. There are cases when a jury determines that only one company is liable, while there are cases when a jury determines that many companies are liable. Insurance coverage disputes further muddles asbestos litigation, bringing in more parties, and needing more expertise, to the case.

Areas of Law