Can seafarers recover punitive damages from non-employer third parties under the general maritime law? Short answer: it depends on where you are. A recent Circuit Court of the City of Chesapeake, Virginia case is the latest example of inconsistent rulings on the availability of punitive damages under the general maritime law.
Under general maritime law, a vessel owner is entitled to the reasonable cost of repair of the vessel, unless this cost exceeds the pre-incident value of the vessel. But can the vessel owner also recover the post-repair loss of market value associated with so-called 'stigma' damages simply because the vessel was repaired following a maritime collision? The court in a recent case answered this question in the negative.
The court recently assumed that passengers aboard a charter fishing vessel were within the 'zone of danger', but still dismissed their claims based on insufficient evidence of injury. According to the court, mere presence in the zone of danger, without more, is insufficient to support a claim for purely emotional injuries under the general maritime law. In short, if you want the court to believe that you have genuine, compensable, emotional injuries, see a medical professional.
Where an employee consults on the side or has a second job, can his or her income post-termination count as mitigation income? According to a recent British Columbia Court of Appeal decision, the answer is yes; such income is considered to be mitigation income and will therefore be deducted from any wrongful dismissal damages that are awarded.
The Illinois Department of Revenue recently issued additional guidance concerning its treatment of the new deemed repatriated foreign earnings provisions found in Internal Revenue Code Section 965, enacted in the federal tax reform bill. The department confirmed key aspects of Illinois' treatment of the repatriation provisions, including that both the income inclusion and deduction provided for in the provisions will be taken into account in determining a taxpayer's tax base.
The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently jettisoned the six-factor, fact-intensive Davis & Sons test for maritime contracts in favour of a "simpler, more straightforward test consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Kirby". The decision will affect contractual indemnity provisions in offshore drilling contracts.
When a sea carrier files for insolvency in the course of a sea carriage, considerable additional costs and expenses occur in the effort to deliver the cargo to the consignee. German law applies if a German freight forwarder is instructed with a multimodal carriage including a sea leg. This results in the general legal obligation for the forwarder to conduct the transport itself or with subcontractors in order to deliver the cargo to its destination for the fixed freight agreed.
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sitting en banc recently issued a majority opinion holding that a determination made by the Patent and Trademark Office concerning whether a petition for an inter partes review is time barred is subject to judicial review. Specifically, the majority held that the limit on judicial review pertaining to institution decisions does not apply to time bar determinations under 35 USC Section 315(b).