Legal Opinion · Dissent

Foster v. Destin Trading Corp.

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided November 6, 1997No. 96-C-0803Published

1DissentCalogero, Chief Justice

I dissent from the majority opinion because I believe that the vessel in question was indeed unseaworthy. Plaintiff is entitled to recover a mitigated amount of damages due to his own negligence in helping to create the unseaworthy condition.

*830The majority properly points out that the nature of the duty owed by a vessel owner to furnish a seaworthy vessel is-absolute and nondelegable. Moreover, a determination of a shipowner’s liability for the unseaworthiness of its vessel is completely divorced from the concepts of negligence and independent of its duty under the Jones Act to exercise…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Mitchell v. Trawler Racer, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1960
  2. Charles D. Gautreaux v. Scurlock Marine, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1997
  3. Whitney Allen v. Seacoast Products, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1980
  4. Gordon H. Hubbard and Shirley M. Hubbard v. Faros Fisheries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1980
  5. Symonette Shipyards, Ltd. v. Lee Clark, Lee Clark v. Symonette Shipyards, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1966

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API