SANA V. HAWAIIAN CRUISES, LTD.
181 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 1999)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Sana (P) appeals from the judgment in favor of Hawaiian Cruises, Ltd.
(D) on his claim for maintenance and cure.
FACTS: D hired P to work in the galley aboard the Navatek. After P left work on March 10,
his father noticed that P was walking differently and that P's hands were 'shivering or
shaking.' The father also observed swelling and a scratch right at P's hairline. P told him
that he had bumped his head at work. On March 11, P became very ill at a church event and
was unresponsive. Doctors performed a CAT scan. The result was negative for head trauma, and
P was released. D's behavior became increasingly bizarre. He was unable to sit still or
sleep, his body shook, and he laughed inappropriately. P could not work and by March 13, his
condition deteriorated. An EEG showed that P's brain function was slowing. Further testing
revealed leukocytosis. The doctors could not determine definitively the cause of P's brain
inflammation. On March 16, P slipped into a coma, in which he remains to this day. At trial,
Dr. Pearce opined that P had viral encephalitis. This was based on P's shaking, weakness,
and behavioral changes. It could not be determined what caused P's encephalitis, because
none of the tests was conclusive. D's expert, testified that it was impossible to determine
when P was infected. P's counsel sought the maritime remedies of maintenance and cure. D
refused the request. P filed a complaint seeking maintenance and cure, as well as damages
for negligence and unseaworthiness under the Jones Act. At trial P attempted to call Don
Beaudry, the president of D's insurance company. Beaudry's agent had investigated P's
behavior on March 9 and 10. The agent's report contains transcripts of his interviews with
two of P's co-workers, and P's immediate supervisor. The co-workers said that P told them
that he had bumped his head at work on March 10 and one claims that P was behaving
abnormally that day. The manager said that P told him that he felt sick on March 8. Since
neither Rutherford nor P's co-workers were available to testify at trial, P hoped to
establish through Beaudry that the Rutherford report was an admissible business record. The
court held it contained inadmissible hearsay. It then held that P was not entitled to
maintenance and cure. The court also denied P's Jones Act claims. P appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment