Maritime Injury Law Blog

In a landmark decision, the Washington State Supreme Court has reinstated an 8 million dollar default judgment entered in favor of a car crash victim seriously injured while a passenger in a Hyundai Accent. The Washington State Supreme Court stated that trial courts need not tolerate deliberate and willful discovery abuse and that in appropriate cases, entry of judgment in favor of the opposing party may be warranted.

Court Rules throughout the nation permit parties in litigation to serve upon opposing parties requests to produce information and records relevant to the lawsuit. This discovery process is central to our American System of justice. In this case, the plaintiff Jesse Magana was rendered a paraplegic in the accident as the result of an alleged negligent design of the car passenger seat which collapsed in the accident. In 2000 and 2001, Magana submitted discovery requests to Hyundai asking for Hyundai to produce documents relating to prior seat back failures in Hyundai products.

Hyundai objected and provided evasive answers to Magana discovery requests seeking information about seat back failures in Hyundai cars. After years of litigation, including a first trial and appeal, Magana moved for an order to compel full and complete responses by Hyundai to the discovery request. Hyundai opposed the motion to produce the prior seat back failure documents claiming it was burdensome and would not lead to discovery of admissible evidence. The trial court rejected Hyundai’s arguments and agreed with Magana and ordered Hyundai to produce the documents. After this order was issued in November, 2005, Hyundai then disclosed that there had been nine other instances of known seat back failures. This disclosure was made just two weeks before Magana’s second trial was to commence.

Fisherman from outside of the State of Alaska who paid “out of state fees” for commercial fishing licenses and permits from 1984 to 2004 will receive up to $ 70 million dollars in compensation. As the result of a class action lawsuit filed in 1984, the Alaska Court has ruled that the State of Alaska must reimburse out of state fisherman for excessive charges. The Court held that charging the non-Alaska fisherman a fee differential violated the privileges and immunities clause of the United States Constitution. Much of the $70 million dollars is the result of the 11% compound interest rate that was set on the damages. Prior to 2004, the State of Alaska had customarily charged non-residents as much as three times more for fishing permits and licenses than it charged Alaska residents. The refunds must be approved by the Alaska State legislature but are anticipated to be paid out to claimants beginning in 2010. The compensation plan is complicated and not all non-residents will receive compensation. Issues still remain over reasonable attorneys fees and the State of Alaska’s contribution to those legal fees.

November 25, 2009

Reversing a Seattle District Court decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that an injured Alaska fish processor has presented sufficient evidence that his case must go to trial.

Samson Ili brought a Jones Act injury claim against American Seafoods based upon the theory that it was negligent to require crewmen to work 16 hours a day, seven days a week, for months at a time. Ili was injured at the end of his shift, after months of work, while lifting 70-lb bags of product. The vessel reportedly took a roll and Ili lost his balance while handling the heavy bag, resulting in his injury. The Ninth Circuit ruled that a reasonable jury could find that these work conditions were a breach of American Seafood’s duty to provide a safe work environment. The Court held that even if the 16-hour-day work shift were customary in the fishing industry, that this does not establish a lack of negligence. The Court further noted that the long hours could be determined to be evidence that the American Seafoods vessel, American Triumph, was under-manned at the time of the crewman’s injury. The case will now be returned to the District Court where a jury will determine whether or not American Seafoods was negligent and their vessel unseaworthy.