Lawyers Experienced in Handling Limitation of Liability Act Claims
Experienced Lawyers Experienced in Handling Limitation of Liability Act Claims and Defeating Limitation of Liability Act. When the Jones Act seafarers suffer catastrophic injuries, vessel owners commonly invoke old maritime legislation known as the Limitation of Liability Act (46 USC Sec. 181-189). The Limitation of Liability Act was created by the United States Congress in 1851 to safeguard the shipping industry. The Act, which has long outlived its original purpose, is nevertheless used by shipowners to try to restrict their liability for wounded crew members, passengers, and guests Liability Act Cases.
Although the Limitation of Liability Act is not popular, it can be utilized to restrict a vessel owner’s damage liability to the vessel’s worth at the conclusion of the journey on which the incident occurred. When a fishing vessel or ship sinks, the worth of the vessel at the conclusion of the journey may be negligible, leaving the person killed or wounded with little or no compensation for their injuries. The vessel owner will try to use the Limitation of Liability Act defense if the vessel’s true worth is low but the personal injury or death damages are high. The Limitation of Liability Act is utilized by vessel owners and insurance companies to try to avoid paying the compensation that is owed to the injured person in situations involving amputation injuries, brain injury, burn injuries, and deaths.
Limitation of Liability Act Cases Defeated
Experienced marine attorneys may be able to defeat the owner’s Limitation of Liability defense. The cases are, nevertheless, usually procedurally and factually complicated. Limitation of Liability can be defeated if it can be shown that the vessel owner had “privity and knowledge” of an unseaworthy condition, or that the owner participated in the negligent act that caused the injury, or that the owner knew or should have known of the acts or omissions that caused the injury. An injured party’s ability to seek full compensation for their injuries requires a thorough grasp of maritime law and the rights and obligations of a vessel owner. To overcome the Limitation of Liability Act argument, a thorough investigation is typically required Liability Act Cases.
Other criteria must be considered even if the owner’s privity and knowledge of negligence or an unseaworthiness state is not proved. A Limitation of Liability Act defense can also be defeated by violations of building standards and safety laws. In many circumstances, the vessel may be tied to significant fishing rights that should be considered when determining the vessel’s worth for the purposes of the Limitation of Liability Act.
You only have a limited amount of time to respond to a defense of limitation of liability.
If you have been wounded and the vessel owner has served you with a Petition For Limitation, you should contact an expert maritime attorney as soon as possible. You only have a certain amount of time to respond to a Petition for Limitation of Liability and establish your entitlement to damages. To defend your rights, you must respond promptly and correctly Liability Act Cases.
Limitation of Liability Claims are something we’ve dealt with before.
Stacey & Jacobsen, PLLC’s marine lawyers have a lot of expertise dealing with maritime damage lawsuits utilizing the Limitation of Liability Act. They’ve won against these arguments in situations involving catastrophic injuries to crew members, including as brain injuries, amputation injuries, and burn injuries. In instances involving the sinkings of the fishing vessels ALEUTIAN ENTERPRISE, ARCTIC ROSE, ALASKA RANGER, KATMAI, PACE SETTER, PACIFIC APOLLO, GALAXY, and VESTFJORD, the company successfully beaten the Limitation of Liability Act defense. Allow them to use their years of maritime law knowledge to help you overcome Limitation of Liability defenses. Stacey & Jacobsen, PLLC is ready to help clients with Limitation of Liability Act matters all around the country.
$16,000,000 – Jury Verdict for Ferry Worker Injury Gangway Collapse
$4,200,000 – Wrongful Death Judgment for longshoreman killed by unsafe cargo container stow.
$4,000,000 – Jones Act Maritime Wrongful Death
$4,000,000 – Burn Injuries Fire and explosion in engine room of fishing vessel.
$3,500,000 – Brain Injury Tug boat deckhand injured by defect in barge’s crane.
$2,600,000 – Arm Injury
Failure to properly train fish processor results in arm injury while cleaning surimi auger
$2,500,000 – Amputation Injury
Fisherman suffered amputation of hand caused by lack of proper machine safety guard
$2,350,000 – Foot Injury
Deckhand on clam boat had foot crushed by cargo hatch
$2,300,000 – Brain Injury/Seizures
Negligent failure to provide ship’s pilot safe exit from container ship
$2,100,000 – Oregon Jury Verdict
Tug boat deckhand – Jones Act hand injury claim
$1,950,000 Alaska Deckhand Low Back Injury
Lack of safety equipment – excessive lift
$1,900,000 – Crab Boat Deckhand
Hand injury while cleaning bait chopper
$1,800,000 – Alaska Fishing Boat Deckhand Shoulder Injury
Unseaworthy trawl net winch
$1,750,000 – Wrongful Death
Alaska Wrongful Death Settlement
Affirmation of the 5-Year Statute of Limitations for Certain BIPA Claims by an Illinois Appellate Court
The claims were dismissed by Black Horse because they were brought after the statute of limitations had expired. The motion was dismissed by the trial court…
In a facial recognition lawsuit, a federal judge has denied Apple’s motion to compel the company to provide personal information Liability Act Cases.
The plaintiffs’ arguments were judged unpersuasive by the Court, which denied the request to compel and quashed the subpoenas. While the Court observed that the…
The Seventh Circuit upholds summary judgment in a class-action lawsuit, ruling that the plaintiff’s own testimony is insufficient to support the claims.
The Court determined that plaintiff’s testimony was insufficient to convince a reasonable jury that a reasonable consumer would think “biologically…