United States Ninth Circuit

A judgment following a bench trial in favor of defendant-employer in an action under the Jones Act for injuries sustained by an employee while diving is vacated where the district court erred in concluding that, to establish negligence per se, a seaman in a Jones Act case must demonstrate that he or she was a member of the intended beneficiaries of a statute or Coast Guard regulation.

Appellate Information

• Argued 02/14/2006
• Decided 03/31/2006
• Published 03/31/2006

Judges

• ALARCÓN, Circuit Judge., Before ALARCÓN and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges, and H. RUSSEL HOLLAND, District Judge.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Howard G. McPherson, Cronin, Fried, Sekiya, Kekina & Fairbanks, Honolulu, HI;  John R. Hillsman, McGuinn, Hillsman & Palefsky, San Francisco, CA, for the plaintiff-appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Richard C. Wootton, Cox, Wootton, Griffin, Hansen & Poulous, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for the defendant-appellee.