STACY C. GRAY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SURVIVING SPOUSE OF LT. DOUGLAS G. GRAY, AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF LT. DOUGLAS G. GRAY, DECEASED, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CROSS-APPELLANT,
v.
LOCKHEED AERONAUTICAL SYSTEMS COMPANY, A DIVISION OF LOCKHEED CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, CROSS-APPELLEE; GRACE M. SCHUMACHER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SURVIVING PARENT OF LT. JOHN T. HARTMAN, AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF LT. JOHN HARTMAN, DECEASED, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CROSS-APPELLANT, V. LOCKHEED AERONAUTICAL SYSTEMS COMPANY, A DIVISION OF LOCKHEED CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, CROSS-APPELLEE; WILMA J. JENNINGS, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS SURVIVING PARENT OF LT. DAVID S. JENNINGS, AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF LT. DAVID S. JENNINGS, DECEASED, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CROSS-APPELLANT, V. LOCKHEED AERONAUTICAL SYSTEMS COMPANY, A DIVISION OF LOCKHEED CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, CROSS-APPELLEE

11th Cir. | 1998-09-25
No. 95-8459
Before HATCHETT, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge, and CLARK, Senior Circuit Judge.
155 F.3d 1343 Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (1998) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM: This case is before the court on remand from the United States Supreme Court for further consideration of our earlier opinion in light of Dooley v. Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd., — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 1890, 141 L.Ed.2d 102 (1998). In accord with the Court’s opinion, we reverse our previous holding that appellees may recover damages for pain and suffering on their survival action claims based on general maritime law in conjunction with the Death on the High Seas Act, 46 U.S.C.App. §§ 761-768. See Gray v. Lockheed Aeronautical Sys. Co., 125 F. 3d 1371, 1381-86 (11th Cir.1997).

We affirm the remainder of our decision that does not touch such survival action claims, and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with our decision and Dooley. REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Brinson v. Raytheon Co., 571 F.3d 1348 (11th Cir. 2009)
    …not to the United States. Id. This doctrine is referred to as the “military contractor defense.” See Gray v. Lockheed Aeronautical Sys. Co., 125 F. 3d 1371, 1373 (11th Cir.1997), abrogated on other grounds by Gray v. Lockheed Aeronautical Sys. Co., 155 F. 3d 1343 (11th Cir.1998). “Stripped to its essentials, the military contractor defense is available only when the defendant demonstrates with respect to its design and manufacturing decisions that the government made me do it.” Gray, 125 F. 3d at 1377. On a…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw