The Oyez Project: Economic Activity Issues - Election of Remedies

Alaska Ind. Bd. v. Chugach Assn.

No details yet.

Amell v. United States

No details yet.

American Export Lines, Inc. v. Alvez

No details yet.

Andrews v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co.

No details yet.

Archawski v. Hanioti

No details yet.

Atchison T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Buell

No details yet.

Banks v. Chicago Grain Trimmers

No details yet.

Bath Iron Works Corp. v. Director, Office Of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department Of Labor

No details yet.

Bloomer v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co.

No details yet.

British Transport Comm'n v. U.S.

No details yet.

Burnett v. New York Central R. Co.

No details yet.

Calbeck v. Travelers Insurance Co.

No details yet.

Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute

No details yet.

Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co. v. Schwalb

No details yet.

Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson

No details yet.

Chick Kam Choo v. Exxon Corp.

No details yet.

Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Gottshall

Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) employee James Gottshall observed a fellow worker, Richard Johns, die of a heart attack while on duty. Gottshall's boss postponed seeking medical assistance during Johns' heart attack, insisted that the crew keep working, and left the body at the work site for the remainder of the work day. Shortly after Johns's death, Gottshall was admitted to a psychiatric institution. Gottshall sued Conrail under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) for exposing him to distressing circumstances which he claimed caused his illness. A District Court rejected the suit.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed and found that Gottshall's injuries were "genuine and severe." The Third Circuit contrasted the liberal injury recovery policy embodied in FELA over the more limited injury relief recovery policy embodied in common law standards, which often applied harsh tests to prove employee injury.

Conrail employee Alan Carlisle also filed a FELA action against Conrail. He claimed that Conrail subjected him to unsafe working conditions, which caused him stress and lead to health problems. Because the stress related health problems were foreseeable to Conrail, the Third Circuit affirmed the judgment for Carlisle.

Crane v. Cedar Rapids & I. C. R. Co.

No details yet.

Crider v. Zurich Ins. Co.

No details yet.

Czaplicki v. The Hoegh Silvercloud

No details yet.

Director, Owcp v. Perini North River Assoc.

No details yet.

Executive Jet Aviation v. City Of Cleveland

No details yet.

Foremost Insurance Co. v. Richardson

No details yet.

Gillespie v. U.S. Steel Corp.

No details yet.

Goett, v. Union Carbide Corp.

No details yet.

Goodyear Atomic Corp. v. Miller

No details yet.

Hahn v. Ross Island Sand & Gravel Co.

No details yet.

Hellenic Lines v. Rhoditis

No details yet.

Hess v. United States

No details yet.

Intercounty Construction Corp. v. Walter

No details yet.

Jackson v. Lykes Bros. S. S. Co.

No details yet.

Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Pfeifer

No details yet.

Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale

No details yet.

Kossick v. United Fruit Co.

No details yet.

Lake Tankers Corp. v. Henn

No details yet.

Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc.

No details yet.

Mcallister v. Magnolia Petro. Co.

No details yet.

Mcclanahan v. Morauer & Hartzell, Inc.

No details yet.

Metro-North Commuter R.R. Co. v. Buckley

Michael Buckley was exposed to insulation dust containing asbestos while employed as a pipefitter by Metro-North Commuter Railroad Co. Buckley feared he would develop cancer, of which periodic medical check ups have revealed no evidence of an asbestos related disease. Buckley filed suit under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), which permits a railroad worker to recover for an "injury . . . resulting from" his employer's "negligence." He sought damages for negligently inflicted emotional distress and to cover the cost of future check ups. The District Court dismissed Buckley's case because since there had been no "physical impact" from his exposure, the FELA did not permit recovery for his emotional injury. Buckley's medical monitoring claim was not discussed. In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that that his contact with the insulation dust was considered a physical impact that, when present, permits a FELA plaintiff to recover for accompanying emotional distress. Furthermore, Buckley could recover the costs of check ups made necessary by the exposure.

Metropolitan Stevedore Co. v. Rambo

John Rambo received a disability award under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) for an injury he sustained while working for the Metropolitan Stevedore Company as a longshore frontman. Afterwards, Rambo acquired new skills and obtained longshore work as a crane operator, earning more than three times his preinjury earnings, though his disabled physical condition remained unchanged. Metropolitan then filed to modify Rambo's disability award under the LHWCA. An Administrative Law judge terminated Rambo's benefits because of his increased earnings. The Benefits Review Board affirmed. In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that the LHWCA only authorizes disability award modifications if there has been a change in an employee's physical condition. Later the appellate court reversed another order discontinuing compensation.

Metropolitan Stevedore Co. v. Rambo

John Rambo received a disability award under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) for an injury he sustained while working for the Metropolitan Stevedore Company as a longshore frontman. Afterwards, Rambo acquired new skills and obtained longshore work as a crane operator, earning more than three times his preinjury earnings, though his disabled physical condition remained unchanged. Metropolitan filed to modify Rambo's disability award under the LHWCA on the ground that there had been a change in conditions such that Rambo was no longer disabled. An Administrative Law judge terminated Rambo's benefits. The Benefits Review Board affirmed. In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that the LHWCA authorizes modification only where there has been a change in an employee's physical condition.

Miles v. Apex Marine Corp.

No details yet.

Miree v. Dekalb County

No details yet.

Mobil Oil Corp. v. Higginbotham

No details yet.

Monessen Southwestern R. Co. v. Morgan

No details yet.

Moragne v. States Marine Lines

No details yet.

Nacirema Co. v. Johnson

No details yet.

Nolan v. Transocean Air Lines

No details yet.

Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Ayers

Six employees of the Norfolk and Western Railroad Company contracted asbestosis, a disease caused by exposure to asbestos. The employees brought suit under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), including a damages request for pain and suffering caused by a fear of cancer (which they had not yet contracted). The district court ruled for the plaintiffs. The court of appeals denied discretionary review.

Norfolk Shipbuilding v. Garris

Christopher Garris' mother filed a complaint in Federal District Court alleging that her son died as the result of injuries he sustained while sandblasting aboard the USNS Maj. Stephen W. Pless. Because the vessel was berthed in the navigable waters of the United States, Garris invoked federal admiralty jurisdiction and sought damages under general maritime law. Garris asserted that the injuries were caused by the negligence of Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corporation. The District Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a federal claim. The court stated that no cause of action exists, under general maritime law, for death resulting from negligence. In reversing, the Court of Appeals noted that although the U.S. Supreme Court had not yet recognized a maritime cause of action for wrongful death resulting from negligence, the action was made appropriate by principles contained in precedent.

Northbrook National Ins. Co. v. Brewer

No details yet.

Northeast Marine Terminal Co. v. Caputo

No details yet.

Offshore Logistics, Inc. v. Tallentire

No details yet.

PacifiCare Health System v. Book

A group of physicians filed suit against a number of managed-health-care organizations, alleging they violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) by failing to reimburse them for health-care services that they had provided to patients covered by the organizations' plans. The District Court refused to compel arbitration of the RICO claims on the ground that the arbitration clauses in the parties' agreements prohibited awards of punitive damages. Subsequently, the court found the arbitration agreements unenforceable. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Pallas Shipping Agency, Ltd. v. Duris

No details yet.

Patterson v. United States

No details yet.

Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Day

No details yet.

Potomac Electric Power Co. v. Director, Owcp

No details yet.

Reed v. Pennsylvania R. Co.

No details yet.

Richards v. United States

No details yet.

Robertson v. Wegmann

No details yet.

Rodrigue v. Aetna Casualty Co.

No details yet.

Rodriguez v. Compass Shipping Co.

No details yet.

Romero v. International Term. Co.

No details yet.

Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co.

No details yet.

Schilling v. Rogers

No details yet.

Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet

No details yet.

Sisson v. Ruby

No details yet.

Southern Pacific Co. v. Gileo

No details yet.

Southwest Marine, Inc. v Gizoni

No details yet.

Stewart v. Dutra Construction Company

Willard Stewart was injured while working on a dredge (a machine for underwater digging) for Dutra, a dredging company. Stewart alleged Dutra was negligent and sued the company in federal district court under the Jones Act. The district court ruled a dredge is not a "vessel in navigation" as defined by the Jones Act and therefore Stewart could not sue under the act. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.

Sun Ship, Inc. v. Pennsylvania

No details yet.

The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co.

No details yet.

The Monrosa v. Carbon Black, Inc.

No details yet.

The Tungus v. Skovgaard

No details yet.

Thomas v. Washington Gas Light Co.

No details yet.

U.S. Bulk Carriers v. Arguelles

No details yet.

Union Pacific R. Co. v. Price

No details yet.

United States v. 93.970 Acres

No details yet.

United States v. Demko

No details yet.

United States v. Fausto

No details yet.

United States v. Lorenzetti

No details yet.

United States v. United Continental Tuna

No details yet.

Vella v. Ford Motor Co.

No details yet.

Victory Carriers, Inc. v. Law

No details yet.

Vimar Seguros Y Reaseguros, S. A. v. M/V Sky Reefer

No details yet.

Walker v. Southern R. Co.

No details yet.

Wyandotte Co. v. United States

No details yet.

Yamaha Motor Corp., U. S. A. v. Calhoun

In 1989, 12-year-old Natalie Calhoun died in a collision in territorial waters off Puerto Rico while riding a Yamaha jet ski. Natalie's parents, invoking Pennsylvania's wrongful-death and survival statutes, filed a federal diversity and admiralty action for damages against Yamaha. Yamaha argued that, because Natalie died on navigable waters, state remedies could not be applied, and that federal, judge-declared maritime law controlled to the exclusion of state law. Under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the District Court held that the federal maritime wrongful-death action excluded state law remedies, but that loss of society and loss of support and services were compensable. Both sides ask for an appeal. After granting the interlocutory review petition, the appellate panel held that state remedies remain applicable in accident cases of this type and have not been displaced by the federal maritime wrongful-death action.

Zicherman v. Korean Air Lines Co.

In 1983, Korean Air Lines (KAL) Flight KE007, en route from Alaska to South Korea entered the airspace of the former Soviet Union and was shot down. All 269 people on board were killed, including Muriel Kole. Subsequently, Marjorie Zicherman and Muriel Mahalek, Kole's sister and mother sued KAL under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention, which governs international air transportation. Zicherman and Mahalek were awarded loss-of-society damages. The Court of Appeals set aside the verdict, holding that general maritime law supplied the substantive compensatory damages law to be applied in an action under the Warsaw Convention and that, under such law, a plaintiff can recover for loss of society only if he was the decedent's dependent at the time of death. The appellate court found that Mahalek had not established dependent status and remanded the case for the District Court to determine whether Zicherman was a dependent of the decedent.