 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kehoe v. Tri-Star Marine8/20/2001
at 1060. The court acknowledged that its holding was potentially in conflict with Crowell. But the court distinguished Crowell, explaining that "the requirement of a 'master-servant' relationship may be necessary to justify liability without fault against a putative employer." Ghotra, 113 F.3d at 1059. The issue in Ghotra, by contrast, was whether the survivors' potential claim under section 905(b) against the vessel, premised on the vessel's negligence, preempted state remedies.
The Ghotra court referred neither to section 905(a) of the Act, nor to the 1984 amendments. Thus, we do not accept Tri-Star's argument that we must look to the Ghotra decision in interpreting section 905(a). We further reject Tri-Star's contention that Congress overturned the Crowell line of cases with the 1984 amendments. Crowell still applies. Here, Kehoe was an independent contractor. Tri-Star was not his employer. Tri-Star is therefore not entitled to statutory immunity. The trial court ruled otherwise and dismissed Kehoe's lawsuit. That decision was in error.
Reversed.
Page 1 2 3 4 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|