Commonwealth v. Figueroa, J.

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 plaintiffs were objectively within the zone of danger because they were in their vehicle “aboard a relatively small ferry as it attempted to traverse a sea roiled by large waves” when their vehicle tipped against the vessel’s bulwark
• finding no clear error in conclusion that plaintiffs were within zone of danger because they were in their vehicle aboard a small ferry amidst large waves when their vehicle tipped against the bulwark
• stating a plaintiff “may recover for NIED under the general maritime law”
• stating a plaintiff “may recover for NIED under the general maritime law”
• “Whether the physical consequences requirement applies to NIED claims under the general maritime law is a matter of some disagreement among the federal courts.” (citing Tassinari v. Key West Water Tours, L.C., 480 F. Supp. 2d 1318, 1321–22 (S.D. Fla. 2007

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).