Legal Opinion · Dissent

Boy Scouts of America v. Graham

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided February 15, 1996No. 94-16609Published

1DissentGoodwin, Circuit Judge

I dissent because I do not believe Congress intended by the Jones Act to create access to insurance for catastrophic injuries suffered by hobby sailors who, from time to time, venture onto navigable waters without pay, for their own benefit, or, for the benefit of others they choose as objects of their bounty and good will.

The statute provides that “[a]ny seaman who shall suffer personal injury in the course of his employment may ... maintain an action for damages at law ...” 46 U.S.C.App. § 688. The injured party must prove three facts: 1) personal injury; 2) seaman status; and 3) that the…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Morissette v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
  2. McDermott International, Inc. v. WilanderSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  3. Chandris, Inc. v. LatsisSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
  4. Cortes v. Baltimore Insular Line, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1932
  5. Warner v. GoltraSupreme Court of the United States · 1934

6 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