 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hahn v. Nabors Offshore Corp.6/26/2002
WRIT DENIED.
Cooks, J., dissents.
This matter is before us on an application for supervisory writs filed by Steven Hahn seeking to reverse the trial court's denial of his motion to strike the jury demand filed by the defendant, Nabors Offshore Corporation (Nabors). For the following reasons, we deny Hahn's application.
This litigation began as a Jones Act and general maritime law suit for compensatory and punitive damages filed by Hahn against his employer, Nabors, in connection with an accident that allegedly occurred on July 16, 2000. Nabors requested a jury trial, and Hahn filed a motion to strike the jury demand. The denial of this motion by the trial court gave rise to the instant application for supervisory writs.
Hahn asserts that, pursuant to the Jones Act, the election of a jury trial is a seaman's exclusive right. Certainly, " hen suit is brought in federal court, the plaintiffs alone have the choice of a judge or jury trial, depending upon the nature of their claims." Parker v. Rowan Cos., 599 So.2d 296, 298 (La.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 871, 113 S.Ct. 203 (1992). In fact, 46 U.S.C. § 688(a), which governs Jones Act claims, provides: "Any seaman who shall suffer personal injury in the course of his employment may, at his election, maintain an action for damages at law, with the right of trial by jury . . . ."
While we do not take issue with the jury trial question in federal court, we note that Hahn brought this suit in state court under the "saving to suitors" clause of 28 U.S.C. § 1333. Considering state law relative to the right to a jury trial, La.Code Civ.P. art. 1731(A) provides: "Except as limited by Article 1732, the right of trial by jury is recognized."
By Acts 1988, No. 147, § 1, the legislature had amended Article 1732 to deny trial by jury in " suit on an admiralty or general maritime claim under federal law that is brought in state court under a federal `saving to suitors' clause, if the plaintiff has designated that suit as an admiralty or general maritime claim." La.Code Civ.P. art. 1732(6) (1988). The Louisiana Supreme Court commented in Parker, 599 So.2d at 299, that "Louisiana apparently attempted to track the federal system and give injured seaman who choose to file in state court the same choice of jury or bench trial as they would have in federal court." (The plaintiff accomplished this choice by either the particular designation of his lawsuit as an admiralty/general maritime suit or by the lack of such designation. See id.)
However, by Acts 1999, No. 1363, § 1, the legislature deleted former La.Code Civ.P. art. 1732(6). With this action, the legislature left nothing in Article 1732 that would prohibit a jury trial in a suit on an admiralty or general maritime claim. The house and senate minutes of April 1999 on the issue indicate that the intent of the deletion was to repeal the prohibition of jury trials in certain admiralty or maritime cases. The repeal is "applicable to causes of action which arise on or after the effective date thereof." Acts 1999, No. 1363, § 2. The cause of action in the instant case arose after the effective date of the repeal. Thus, pursuant to La.Code Civ.P. art. 1731(A), because the right to trial by jury in admiralty/general maritime claims is no longer limited by Article 1732, it is recognized in the instant case. As stated in Parker, 599 So.2d at 301, "it is within the province of the states to establish their own rules for the availability of jury trials." Importantly, " ffording a litigant a right to trial by jury in our state courts does not . . . modify or displace essential features of the substantive maritime law." Lavergne v. Western Co. of N. Am., In
Page 1 2 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|