Coats v. Penrod Drilling Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that general maritime law allows plaintiffs to recover “when the Jones Act is inapplicable, such as when a seaman is injured through the fault of a third party”
• “The special solicitude for seaman ... applies under the general maritime law when the Jones Act is inapplicable, such as when a seaman is injured through the fault of a third party.”
• “[T]he repair and maintenance of a jack-up drilling rig on navigable waters is certainly a traditional maritime activity.”
• “The second factor is the law of the flag. . . . MIS is not a shipowner and therefore this factor has no specific application to it.”
• “Without a doubt, worker injuries, particularly to those involved in repair and maintenance, can have a disruptive impact on maritime commerce by stalling or delaying the primary activity of the vessel.”
• tracing history of joint and several liability in maritime law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Other cases named Coats v. Penrod Drilling Corp.

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

• Coats v. Penrod Drilling Corp.
  S.D. Mississippi· 1992-02-18· cited 6×
• Coats v. Penrod Drilling Corp.
  Fifth Circuit· 1993-09-03