Legal Opinion
Hanson v. Gimrock Construction, Inc.
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Decided February 13, 2002No. 3D01-143PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
Hanson fell and was injured while working as a crane operator on his employer’s barge in the Caribbean sea. Although, because Hanson was almost certainly a “seaman” and thus subject to the Jones Act, see Lauritzen v. Larsen, 345 U.S. 571, 73 S.Ct. 921, 97 L.Ed. 1254 (1953), a Florida worker’s compensation claim almost certainly did not lie, see § 440.09(2), Fla. Stat. (1994); Brown v. Glabvo Dredging Contractors, 386 So.2d 53, 54 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)(“Florida does not permit workmen’s compensation when recovery is possible under the Jones Act. Section 440.09(2), Florida…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Lauritzen v. LarsenSupreme Court of the United States · 1953
- South Buffalo Railway Co. v. AhernSupreme Court of the United States · 1953
- Claim of Ahern v. South Buffalo Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1952
- George Mooney v. The City of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2000
- Jerry Charpentier v. Fluor Ocean Services, Inc., and Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., DefendantsCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1980
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Diaz v. Structural Prestressed Industries, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2006