Barry Brister and Karen Brister, Cross-Appellees v. A.W.I., Inc., Cross-Appellants

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the district court was entitled to consider that the jury \probably included\ cure payments and, therefore, properly reduced a double recovery award
• explaining that a corporate shipowner is entitled to limitation if it overcomes the “presumption[s] . . . that” (1) “its officers and managers had actual knowledge,” and (2) “that they should have known of the unseaworthy or negligent condition that caused the injury”
• “[A] plaintiff must prove that the unseaworthy condition played a substantial part in bringing about or actually causing the injury” (quotation marks and citation omitted)
• \Maintenance and cure is a contractual form of compensation given by the general maritime law.\
• “Unlike a Jones Act claim, unseaworthiness is ‘predicated without regard to fault or the use of due care.’ ”
• “[A] plaintiff must prove that the unseaworthy condition played a substantial part in bringing about or actually causing the injury” (quotation marks and citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).