Fifth Circuit· 8/8/1995

Coats v. Penrod Drilling Corp.

Citations

61 F.3d 1113
64 U.S.L.W. 2113
1996 A.M.C. 1
1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 21051
1995 WL 467791

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).

Judges: Politz, King, Garwood, Jolly, Higginbotham, Davis, Jones, Smith, Duhé, Wiener, Barksdale, Garza, Demoss, Benavides, Stewart, Parker

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

64 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

105 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Coats v. Penrod Drilling Corp.

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.