Cheryl Smith v. Trinidad Corporation

992 F.2d 996, 93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3390, 1993 A.M.C. 2083, 93 Daily Journal DAR 5842, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 10474
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMay 10, 1993
Docket20-80014
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 992 F.2d 996 (Cheryl Smith v. Trinidad Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cheryl Smith v. Trinidad Corporation, 992 F.2d 996, 93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3390, 1993 A.M.C. 2083, 93 Daily Journal DAR 5842, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 10474 (9th Cir. 1993).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Cheryl Smith appeals a summary judgment which denied. her claim for loss of consortium in her action against the shipowner on whose vessel her husband sustained an injury. We affirm.

The Supreme Court in Miles 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 in Miles has 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.

The Fifth Circuit recently faced this same issue in Murray 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 that Miles had 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 of Miles and affirm the summary judgment.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Elorreaga v. ABB, Inc.
N.D. California, 2022
Batterton v. Dutra Group
880 F.3d 1089 (Ninth Circuit, 2018)
McBride v. Estis Well Service, LLC
872 F. Supp. 2d 511 (W.D. Louisiana, 2012)
Watson v. Oceaneering International, Inc.
387 F. Supp. 2d 385 (D. Delaware, 2005)
Watters v. Harrah's Illinois Corp.
993 F. Supp. 667 (N.D. Illinois, 1998)
Friedman v. Cunard Line Ltd.
996 F. Supp. 303 (S.D. New York, 1998)
Clancy v. Mobil Oil Corp.
906 F. Supp. 42 (D. Massachusetts, 1995)
Glynn v. Roy Al Boat Management Corp.
57 F.3d 1495 (Ninth Circuit, 1995)
Domingo Guevara v. Maritime Overseas Corporation
34 F.3d 1279 (Fifth Circuit, 1994)
Benny Chan v. Society Expeditions, Inc.
39 F.3d 1398 (Ninth Circuit, 1994)
Guevara v. Maritime Overseas Corp.
59 F.3d 1496 (Fifth Circuit, 1994)
Walker v. Braus
861 F. Supp. 527 (E.D. Louisiana, 1994)
Chan v. Society Expeditions, Inc.
39 F.3d 1398 (Ninth Circuit, 1994)
Horsley v. Mobil Oil Corp.
First Circuit, 1994
Smallwood v. American Trading & Transportation Co.
839 F. Supp. 1377 (N.D. California, 1993)
Horsley ex rel. Horsley v. Mobil Oil Corp.
825 F. Supp. 424 (D. Massachusetts, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
992 F.2d 996, 93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3390, 1993 A.M.C. 2083, 93 Daily Journal DAR 5842, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 10474, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cheryl-smith-v-trinidad-corporation-ca9-1993.