![]() ![]() Drilling Well Control, Inc., 592 F.2d 1246 (5th Cir. In this appeal Self challenges the application by the district court of apportionment principles set out by this court in Leger v.In The Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court held that when a ship involved in a collision is in violation of a statutory rule designed to prevent collisions, the burden shifts to that ship to disprove that the violation was a contributing cause of the collision. ยง 80.26(c) (1974), we must now consider the applicability of the rule set out in The Pennsylvania, 86 U.S. Having affirmed the district court's determination that Great Lakes violated 33 C.F.R.The issues of Chevron's and Great Lakes' damages were reserved for later trial. At trial, Self's claims against Great Lakes were tried as well as liability issues between Great Lakes and Chevron. All of the personal injury claimants except for Self settled with Great Lakes. ![]() On remand, a different district judge consolidated the pending actions for a nonjury trial. For reasons explained in Ebanks, this court reversed. The jury found that Great Lakes was negligent but found that Great Lakes was not liable to the plaintiffs. The original trial judge severed the third-party complaints and conducted a jury trial between the personal injury plaintiffs and Great Lakes. Both Chevron companies settled with all of the personal injury and death claimants, including Self. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |