Cairl v. Boeing Co.

4 Citing cases

  1. Chromy v. Lawrance

    233 Cal.App.3d 1521 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 17 times
    In Chromy, the defendants filed a demurrer challenging the court's subject matter jurisdiction, which the trial court overruled.

    ]" ( Gordon v. Reynolds (1960) 187 Cal.App.2d 472, 477 [ 10 Cal.Rptr. 73].) Cairl v. Boeing Co. (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 137, 139-140 [ 113 Cal.Rptr. 925], rejected the notion that Moragne expands the jurisdiction of a California court. So do we.

  2. Touhey v. Carnivale Cruise Lines

    111 Cal.App.3d 958 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980)   Cited 3 times
    Applying DOHSA where decedent was injured aboard ship on the high seas, but died of his injuries more than a year later in a hospital onshore

    The Death on the High Seas Act, 46 United States Code section 761, provides: "Whenever the death of a person shall be caused by wrongful act, neglect, or default occurring on the high seas beyond a marine league from the shore of any State, or the District of Columbia, or the Territories or dependencies of the United States, the personal representative of the decedent may maintain a suit for damages in the district courts of the United States, in admiralty, for the exclusive benefit of the decedent's wife, husband, parent, child, or dependent relative against the vessel, person, or corporation which would have been liable if death had not ensued." The purpose of the Death on the High Seas Act is to provide uniformity in wrongful death actions. ( Chapman v. City of Grosse Pointe Farms (6th Cir. 1967) 385 F.2d 962; Lavello v. Danko (S.D.N.Y. 1959) 175 F. Supp. 92; Cairl v. Boeing Co. (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 137 [ 113 Cal.Rptr. 925]; Mobil Oil Corp. v. Higginbotham (1978) 436 U.S. 618 [56 L.Ed.2d 581, 98 S.Ct. 2010].) This purpose is accomplished only when the locality test turns on the location of the injury rather than the place where death may finally occur.

  3. Bailey v. Carnival Cruise Lines

    448 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 5 times
    Recognizing federal Act as exclusive remedy

    Those cases further the tradition of achieving uniformity in admiralty law. Decisions addressing the issue include: Bodden v. American Offshore, Inc., 681 F.2d 319, 327 (5th Cir. 1982); Heyl v. Carnival Cruise Lines, 1981 AMC 2393 (5th Cir.) (per curiam) (marked "Do not publish"), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1066, 101 S.Ct. 795, 66 L.Ed.2d 611 (1980); Wilson v. Transocean Airlines, 121 F. Supp. 85 (N.D. Cal. 1954); see also Nygaard v. Peter Pan Seafoods, Inc., 701 F.2d 77 (9th Cir. 1983); Vaz Borralho v. Keydril Co., 696 F.2d 379, 384 n. 6 (5th Cir. 1983); Hlodan v. Ohio Barge Line, Inc., 611 F.2d 71 (5th Cir. 1980); Renner v. Rockwell International Corp., 587 F.2d 1030 (9th Cir. 1978); Jennings v. Goodyear Aircraft Corp., 227 F. Supp. 246 (D.Del. 1964); Noel v. United Aircraft Corp., 204 F. Supp. 929 n. 5 (D.Del. 1962); Echavarria v. Atlantic Caribbean Steam Navigation Co., 10 F. Supp. 677 (E.D.N.Y. 1935); Touhey v. Ross Fous Medical Group, 111 Cal.App.3d 958, 168 Cal.Rptr. 910 (1980); Cairl v. Boeing Co., 39 Cal.App.3d 137, 113 Cal.Rptr. 925 (1974); Gordon v. Reynolds, 187 Cal.App.2d 472, 10 Cal. Rptr. 73 (1960). Contra In re Red Star Towing Transportation, 552 F. Supp. 367 (S.D.N.Y. 1983); In re Complaint of Exxon, 548 F. Supp. 977 (S.D.N.Y. 1982); Alexander v. United Technologies Corp., 548 F. Supp. 139 (D.Conn. 1982); Lowe v. Trans World Airlines, 396 F. Supp. 9 (S.D.N.Y. 1975); Safir v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 241 F. Supp. 501 (E.D.N.Y. 1965).

  4. People v. Anderson

    39 Cal.App.3d 141 (Cal. Ct. App. 1974)

    With respect to the application of the equal protection clause to indigent defendants relative to the question of presentence credits, the position of most courts since Tate has been to require that credit be given because 'lack of wealth has resulted in [the indigent defendant] having to serve a sentence that a richer man would not have to serve.' (In re Young, 32 Cal.App.3d 68, 73, 107 Cal.Rptr. 915, 918, quoting United States v. Gaines, 449 F.2d 143 (2d Cir. 1971); see, e. g., Wilson v. North Carolina, 438 F.2d 284 (4th Cir. 1971); see also Schornhorst, Presentence Confinement and the Constitution: The Burial of Dead Time, 23 Hast.L.J. 1041 (1972); Stacy, Constitutional Right to [113 Cal.Rptr. 925] Sentence Credit for Pretrial Incarceration, 41 Cin.L.Rev. 823 (1972).) Defendant's authorities are, however, not on point.