SafeSea Logo
Join RenewContact

RSS Subscribe to RSS Feed

Latest Posts

  1. Of Shares and Scallops John Fulweiler 23-Jul-2010
  2. Of Muscle Cars and Maritime Lawyers John Fulweiler 13-Jul-2010
  3. Sweet Mother Mary... John Fulweiler 28-Jun-2010
  4. Are You Guilty of This? John Fulweiler 18-Jun-2010
  5. To Hades and Back John Fulweiler 04-Jun-2010

Tags


Disclaimer

This blog is for fun.  There is NO legal opinion offered and NO attorney/client relationship is formed under any circumstances.  The comments relayed herein may or may not be accurate.  There's no warranty as to accuracy, no warranty as to whether you'll find any of it interesting, no warranty as to anything.  If you have a legal issue, contact an attorney and DO NOT RELY on anything stated herein.  Again, I'm blogging here, NOT lawyering.    

Also, DO NOT respond to posts with questions regarding your specific legal issues.  The posts are publicly displayed, I will NOT respond, and you may prejudice your legal standing.  This is NOT the right forum to seek legal advice.

The Salty Barrister

Experienced admiralty attorney John Fulweiler shares some insights into the "Law of the Sea". Capt. Fulweiler grew up as a RI Boater, and spent several of his collegiate summers as a Safe/Sea Captain.

Fresh From the (Sea) Courts

John Fulweiler - Thursday, August 06, 2009

Here's what I did. I just checked our case law database to see what the most recent decision in the whole U.S. of A regarding an admiralty issue was about. Near as I can tell, Rodriguez v. Trump Casino decided by United States Magistrate Judge Andrew P. Rodovich on July 29, 2009 is as fresh as it gets.

Catherine Rodriguez was a dealer aboard a gaming boat owned by Trump Casino. While walking through a cafeteria at work, she allegedly fell and injured her ankle. Catherine sought remedies afforded to her as a maritime worker. The Court's opinion deals with a summary judgment motion whereby one party seeks to have the Court rule on an issue based on undisputed facts within the record.

Here, the summary judgment motion was seeking to dismiss Catherine's Jones Act claim, but it didn't work. (Ahh, the good 'ol Jones Act. See my June 2 and June 7 posts for a refresher on its workings.) The Court found that genuine issues of material fact existed precluding summary judgment. Practically speaking, this means that Catherine likely gets to put her case before the jury, but it doesn't mean she'll ultimately prevail.

In addition, the Magistrate Judge's opinion needs to be accepted by the District Judge and any party can file objections to the Magistrate Judge's opinion within ten days. What I'll do is keep an eye on Catherine's case and give you an update if I learn anything new.

Underway and making way.

--- JKF


60 Reynolds Street
Wickford, RI 02852
24 Hour Dispatch: 401-295-8711