 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Quinn v. St. Charles Gaming Company2/6/2002
WRIT DENIED.
The defendant, St. Charles Gaming Company, Inc., d/b/a Isle of Capri Casino - Lake Charles, seeks supervisory writs on the trial court's denial of its motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether non-pecuniary damages are recoverable pursuant to general maritime law under the facts at issue.
FACTS
This matter was consolidated with its companion case, Quinn v. St. Charles Gaming Company, Inc., d/b/a Isle of Capri Casino - Lake Charles, 01-794 (La.App. 3 Cir. / / ), So.2d , decided this same day. Briefly, the heirs of Ramona Jones allege that St. Charles served excessive amounts of alcohol to Ninh V. Do between April 30 and May 1, 2000, and then failed to adequately supervise him; thus, allowing him to leave its premises with a blood alcohol level beyond the legal limit. A short time later, he collided head-on with a vehicle driven by Jones, killing both instantly.
In their suit for damages against St. Charles, Jones' heirs, Lola Jones Quinn, Arnold C. Jones, Sr., Judith Ann Jones, Suetta M. Burney, Arnold C. Jones, Jr., Betty L. Hicks, and Eugene P. Jones (collectively referred to as Quinn), sought pecuniary and exemplary damages under the general maritime law. Do's children, Phong Duc Do and Quan Duc Do (Intervenors), intervened in the suit seeking similar damages from St. Charles. After the trial court denied its motion for summary judgment on the issue of dram shop liability, St. Charles sought a partial summary judgment to preclude the recovery of non-pecuniary damages under general maritime law. This motion was also denied by the trial court. This application for supervisory writs followed. Although this writ was in contravention of our July 26, 2001 stay order in docket number 01-794, we denied both Quinn and the Intervenors' motion to dismiss and granted the writ.
PUNITIVE DAMAGES
In deciding whether non-pecuniary damages are available under the general maritime law, we need look no further than the United States Supreme Court's decision in Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U.S. 19, 111 S.Ct. 317 (1990).
In Miles, a seaman was stabbed to death by a fellow crew member while the vessel on which they both served was docked in state territorial waters. His mother, Miles, sought damages based on two theories of recovery: (1) negligence pursuant to the Jones Act, and (2) unseaworthiness pursuant to general maritime law. The damages sought included loss of society and a survival action for lost future earnings. In determining whether these damages were available, the Supreme Court first exhaustively reviewed its prior opinion in Moragne v. State Marine Lines, Inc., 398 U.S. 375, 90 S.Ct. 1772 (1970), in which it created a general maritime cause of action for wrongful death. In doing so, the Court illustrated the principles to be employed by a court in an admiralty setting:
We no longer live in an era when seamen and their loved ones must look primarily to the courts as a source of substantive legal protection from injury and death; Congress and the States have legislated extensively in these areas. In this era, an admiralty court should look primarily to these legislative enactments for policy guidance. We may supplement these statutory remedies where doing so would achieve the uniform vindication of such policies consistent with our constitutional mandate, but we must also keep strictly within the limits imposed by Congress. Congress retains superior authority in these matters, and an admiralty court must be vigilant not to overstep the well-considered boundaries imposed by federal legislation. These statutes both direct and delimit our actions. Miles, 498 U.S. at 27, 111 S.Ct. at 32
Page 1 2 3 4 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|