Marine Asbestos Cases v. American Hawaii Cruises, Inc.

Good Law
2001 Daily Journal DAR 9827·265 F.3d 861·2001 A.M.C. 2686·2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7946·2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 20136
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 10, 2001Nos. 99-16183, 99-16200, 99-16204, 99-16206, 99-16210 to 99-16212, 99-16218 to 99-16222, 99-16248 to 99-16256, 99-16265 and 99-16269, 99-16272 to 99-16276, 99-16280 to 99-16285, 99-16288 to 99-16292, 99-16297 to 99-16299, 99-16303, 99-16304, 99-16306, 99-16307, 99-16349, 99-16350, 99-16352, 99-16353, 99-16355, 99-16357, 99-16360, 99-16361, 99-16363, 99-16369, 99-16386 to 99-16390, 99-16392, 99-16394, 99-16395, 99-16398 to 99-16400, 99-16402, 99-16404, 99-16406, 99-16415, 99-16416, 99-16420 to 99-16432, 99-16434, 99-16435, 99-16445 to 99-16447, 99-16449, 99-16450, 99-16454 to 99-16457, 99-16459 to 99-16465, 99-16474 to 99-16477, 99-16481 to 99-16483, 99-16485 to 99-16488, 99-16505 to 99-16515, 99-16517 to 99-16520, 99-16536, 99-16537, 99-16540, 99-16541, 99-16543 to 99-16546, 99-16548, 99-16549, 99-16551 to 99-16553, 99-16557, 99-16559, 99-16561 to 99-16564, 99-16566, 99-16569, 99-16570, 99-16572, 99-16574, 99-16577, 99-16593 to 99-16597, 99-16599 to 99-16603, 99-16618, 99-16620, 99-16621, 99-16623, 99-16624, 99-16627, 99-16628, 99-16637, 99-16639, 99-16640, 99-16641, 99-16648, 99-16650, and 99-16651 to 99-16657California2,126 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Schroeder, J.

This is a consolidated appeal involving 174 separate but virtually identical civil' actions which were filed in the district court by seamen who formerly worked aboard the S.S. Independence, the S.S. Constitution, or both ships. Each plaintiff claims to have been exposed to asbestos in the course of employment on board the vessels. None of these plaintiffs has been diagnosed with any asbestos-related medical condition. Plaintiffs seek recovery, in the form of medical monitoring, under the Jones Act and theories of unseaworthiness, maintenance and cure, as well as the intentional torts of assault and battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiffs also seek punitive damages.

The principal question that we address in this appeal is whether, as a matter of law, a seaman can recover the type of medical monitoring requested by plaintiffs under any of the three seamen’s claims: the Jones Act, unseaworthiness, and maintenance and cure. Plaintiffs want a court-supervised medical monitoring program that would provide each plaintiff with a single baseline medical examination. Plaintiffs also seek damages and costs for defendants’ continuing failure to provide this…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.