Kaiser v. Travelers Insurance

496 F.2d 531, 1974 A.M.C. 1816
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Kaiser v. Travelers Insurance. Read the opinion of the Court — 487 F.2d 1300
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided August 28, 1974·No. No. 73-2653·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The Petition for Rehearing is granted.

This case was originally decided on the basis of Canal Barge Co. v. Griffith, 480 F.2d 11 (5th Cir. 1973), which held that there could be no recovery for loss of love and affection in a death action brought under the general maritime law.

Plaintiffs have requested rehearing in the light of Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet, 414 U.S. 573, 94 S.Ct. 806, 39 L.Ed.2d 9 (1974). In McDonald v. Federal Barge Lines, Inc., 496 F.2d 1376 (5th Cir. 1974), this Court in effect held that Sea-Land Services overruled that aspect of Canal Barge.

Defendants have requested that if rehearing is granted, they be given an opportunity to argue the liability questions raised by way of cross-appeal. When this case was originally decided, it had not seemed necessary to reach these issues in view of our determination of the damage issue under the rationale of Canal Barge. It now appearing that such issues should be decided on the oral argument calendar, rather than the summary calendar,

It is ordered that this appeal, including the cross-appeal, be set for oral argument as if the case had been originally screened for oral argument rather than the summary calendar. The Clerk shall set a briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs.

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

Kaiser v. Travelers Insurance, 496 F.2d 531, 1974 A.M.C. 1816 (5th Cir. 1974).

496 F.2d 531 (Kaiser v. Travelers Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet
414 U.S. 573 (Supreme Court, 1974)
Canal Barge Co. v. Griffith
480 F.2d 11 (Fifth Circuit, 1973)
McDonald v. Federal Barge Lines, Inc.
496 F.2d 1376 (Fifth Circuit, 1974)