Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Cheryl Smith v. Trinidad Corporation

992 F.2d 996

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1993-05-10
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • holding that seamen do not have a remedy of punitive damages for personal injuries but non-seamen do
  • agreeing that wives of injured mariners cannot recover for loss of society and loss of consortium in their own actions filed under the Jones Act or under general admiralty law
  • agreeing with the Fifth Circuit that the Supreme Court’s 17 decision in Miles “effectively overruled” loss of consortium claims filed under the Jones Act or 18 under general admiralty law
  • per 8 that the logic if not the holding of Miles supports Maritime's argument. In the wake of Miles, in fact, four appellate courts have held that punitive damages now are unavailable under general maritime law. See Horsley v. Mobil Oil Co., 15 F.3d 200 (1st Cir. 1994

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Cheryl Smith v. Trinidad Corporation. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
23 opinions
SMITH v. TRINIDAD CORPORATION,992 F.2d 996(9th Cir. 1993)
CHERYL SMITH, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. TRINIDAD CORPORATION,
DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
No. 91-16826.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted April 14, 1993.
Decided May 10, 1993.
Kenneth W. Rosenthal, San Francisco, CA, for plaintiff-appellant.

Norman J. Ronneberg, Rice, Fowler, Kingsmill, Vance, Flint Booth, San Francisco, CA, for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Charles A. Legge, District Judge, Presiding.
Before GOODWIN, HUG and FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] Cheryl Smith appeals a summary judgment which denied her claim for loss of consortium in her action against the ship-owner on whose vessel her husband sustained an injury. We affirm.

[2] The Supreme Court inMiles v. Apex Marine Corp.,498 U.S. 19, 111 S.Ct. 317, 112 L.Ed.2d 275 (1990) precluded actions for loss of society under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.App. § 688, and general admiralty law. We agree with the district court that the Supreme Court's holding inMileshas changed the law, and that wives of injured mariners may no longer sue the ship for damages for their nonpecuniary losses, if any, caused by the injuries to the spouse.

[3] The Fifth Circuit recently faced this same issue inMurray v.Anthony J. Bertucci Constr. Co., Inc.,958 F.2d 127(5th Cir.),cert. denied,___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 190, 121 L.Ed.2d 134 (1992), and held thatMileshad effectively overruled earlier Fifth Circuit cases allowing wives of injured mariners to recover for loss of society and loss of consortium in their own actions filed under the Jones Act or under general admiralty law.Id.at 129-132. We agree with the Fifth Circuit's reading ofMilesand affirm the summary judgment.

[4]AFFIRMED.Page 997