Tort Law

The cases reported on this page are from the Virginia Supreme Court and are summarized by Brien Roche. They deal with the topic of the Jones Act and the related topic of vehicle accidents. For more information on the Jones Act see the pages on Wikipedia.

Jones Act-Cases

2012 Omega Protein, Inc. v. Forrest, 284 Va. 432, 732 S.E.2d 708.
In seaman’s action for personal injury, plaintiff failed to present adequate evidence that injury was caused by the employer’s alleged negligence. The fact that employer rehired plaintiff without having him undergo an MRI does not mean that employer caused him to suffer injury where no evidence was presented that MRI would have indicated he was unfit for the job.

1994 Weeks Marine v. Gillikin, 247 Va. 89, 439 S.E.2d 341.
Court ruled as matter of law that vessel was unseaworthy because the engine needed mechanical repair. Essence of seaworthiness doctrine is that things about ship must be reasonably fit for purpose for which they are to be used. This does not require that every piece of equipment be reasonably fit for whatever use it may be put, but only that it be reasonably fit for those tasks for which it was furnished. Error to rule on seaworthiness as matter of law in this case.

1983 Taylor v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 224 Va. 562, 299 S.E.2d 340.
Jones Act case. Plaintiff injured while working on boiler.

1969 Tidewater Constr. Corp. v. Duke, 210 Va. 143, 169 S.E.2d 585.
Threshold question was whether plaintiff came under protection of Jones Act.