Sana v. Hawaiian Cruises, Ltd. case brief summary
181 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 1999)
CASE FACTS
Defendant is the owner of a ship.
His employee slipped into a coma from brain inflammation.
The Plaintiff, the employee's father, sued defendant seeking maintenance and cure.
The district court granted the defendant leave to amend its answer by pleading limitation of liability under 46 U.S.C.S. § 183(a).
The defendant's insurer's agent interviewed the employee's co-workers.
The co-workers claimed that the employee was behaving strangely at work.
The district court refused to let the president testify regarding agent's interview report and denied relief to plaintiff because the plaintiff did not prove that the employee's illness manifested itself on or before his last work day.
Plaintiff appealed.
DISCUSSION
After plaintiff employee's father was denied relief in his suit seeking maintenance and cure, the court reversed and remanded for new trial because the district court should have admitted agent's report as a business record. The court affirmed leave to amend defendant's answer because it was not time barred.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
181 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 1999)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Plaintiff employee's father appealed
the decision of the United States District Court for the District of
Hawaii denying plaintiff's maintenance and cure claim against
defendant ship owner under Federal Rules of Evidence 803(6), and granting
defendant leave to amend its answer under statute 46 U.S.C.S. §§ 183(a),
185.CASE FACTS
Defendant is the owner of a ship.
His employee slipped into a coma from brain inflammation.
The Plaintiff, the employee's father, sued defendant seeking maintenance and cure.
The district court granted the defendant leave to amend its answer by pleading limitation of liability under 46 U.S.C.S. § 183(a).
The defendant's insurer's agent interviewed the employee's co-workers.
The co-workers claimed that the employee was behaving strangely at work.
The district court refused to let the president testify regarding agent's interview report and denied relief to plaintiff because the plaintiff did not prove that the employee's illness manifested itself on or before his last work day.
Plaintiff appealed.
DISCUSSION
- The court reversed and remanded for new trial because the district court should have admitted agent's report as a business record under Federal Rules of Evidence 803(6).
- The court affirmed defendant's leave to amend its answer because limitations period in the statute did not apply to an assertion of the limitation of liability defense of (a) in the statute in an answer.
After plaintiff employee's father was denied relief in his suit seeking maintenance and cure, the court reversed and remanded for new trial because the district court should have admitted agent's report as a business record. The court affirmed leave to amend defendant's answer because it was not time barred.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
No comments:
Post a Comment