Haviland v. Edwards

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting the argument that future medical expenses were speculative where the treating physician testified that the plaintiff “would likely need further medical treatment . . . and that he would probably have ongoing pain over the course of his lifetime”
• “the central purpose of the Jones Act [is] to protect those who are particularly vulnerable to the perils of the sea as a result of their employment and who, by tradition, have been wards of the admiralty law.”
• rejecting common ownership or control requirement
• noting its disagreement with the Third Circuit

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).