MRS. LAURA KAISER, WIFE OF/AND IGNATIUS J. BARRECA, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS CROSS APPELLEES,
v.
TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES, HENRY BRIEN, JR., AND TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO., GEORGE TRANCHINA, COASTAL SAND & GRAVEL CO., AND FIDELITY & CASUALTY COMPANY OF NEW YORK, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES CROSS APPELLANTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court granted the petition for rehearing and ordered the case set for oral argument.
The case was originally decided based on precedent that disallowed recovery for loss of love and affection in death actions under general maritime law…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Summary Calendar cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The Petition for Rehearing is granted.
This case was originally decided on the basis of Canal Barge Co. v. Griffith, 480 F. 2d 11 (5th Cir. 1973), which held that there could be no recovery for loss of love and affection in a death action brought under the general maritime law.
Plaintiffs have requested rehearing in the light of Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet, 414 U.S. 573, 94 S.Ct. 806, 39 L.Ed.2d 9 (1974). In McDonald v. Federal Barge Lines, Inc., 496 F. 2d 1376 (5th Cir. 1974), this Court in effect held that Sea-Land Services overruled that aspect of Canal Barge.
Defendants have requested that if rehearing is granted, they be given an opportunity to argue the liability questions raised by way of cross-appeal. When this case was originally decided, it had not seemed necessary to reach these issues in view of our determination of the damage issue under the rationale of Canal Barge. It now appearing that such issues should be decided on the oral argument calendar, rather than the summary calendar,
It is ordered that this appeal, including the cross-appeal, be set for oral argument as if the case had been originally screened for oral argument rather than the summary calendar. The Clerk shall set a briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Landry v. TWO R. Drilling Co., 511 F.2d 138 (5th Cir. 1975)
Authorities Cited
- Sea-Land Servs., Inc. v. Gaudet, 414 U.S. 573 (U.S. 1974)
- Petition of Canal Barge Co., Inc. v. Griffith, 480 F.2d 11 (5th Cir. 1973)
- McDONALD v. Fed. Barge Lines, Inc., 496 F.2d 1376 (5th Cir. 1974)
- Patterson v. United States, 487 F.2d 1300 (5th Cir. 1974)