Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-03240/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-03240-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BARRY KELLY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CBS CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 11-cv-03240-VC 

ORDER RE APPLICATION OF 

MARITIME LAW

On April 20, 2015, the Court ordered the parties to provide supplemental briefing on the 

question whether maritime law should apply in this case, and if so, whether the application of 

maritime law should affect the Court's rulings on the motions in limine. Docket No. 114. Having 

reviewed the parties' submissions, the Court's rulings on the motions in limine remain unchanged. 

In addition, the parties have requested that the Court issue two legal rulings in advance of 

trial, for the purpose of streamlining the trial. 

On the issue of causation, the trial will be governed by Cabasug v. Crane Co., 989 F. 

Supp. 2d 1027 (D. Haw. 2013), for exactly the reasons provided by Judge Seabright in that 

opinion. See id. at 1038 ("As to whether a Defendant's product was a substantial factor in causing 

Plaintiffs' injuries, the court again stresses that context matters. . . . [W]hat exposure constitutes 

'minimal' as opposed to 'substantial' exposure depends on the particular circumstances of each 

case. For example, where Plaintiffs have raised a genuine issue that Cabasug was exposed to the 

asbestos components of a product in the course of his regular duties, expert testimony that every

asbestos exposure increases the individual's risk of developing mesothelioma may support the 

reasonable inference that asbestos from the Defendant's product was a substantial factor in causing 

Plaintiffs' injuries.").

On the viability of Plaintiff Molly Kelly's claim for loss of consortium damages, these 

damages may be recoverable in "cases involving longshoremen injured or killed on state territorial 

waters," and "the beneficiaries of passengers killed or injured on state territorial waters." Chan v. 

Case 3:11-cv-03240-VC Document 141 Filed 05/08/15 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Soc'y Expeditions, Inc., 39 F.3d 1398, 1407 (9th Cir. 1994) (emphasis omitted). But the parties 

appear to agree that Barry Kelly was a seaman at the time of his alleged injury. As a result, there 

can be no recovery for loss of consortium. See Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U.S. 19, 33 

(1990) ("We must conclude that there is no recovery for loss of society in a general maritime 

action for the wrongful death of a Jones Act seaman."); Chan, 39 F.3d at 1407 ("Loss of society 

damages are . . . not recoverable . . . under the general maritime law, for the wrongful death of a 

seaman. They are likewise unavailable in connection with the injury of a Jones Act seaman."

(citations omitted)). See also Smith v. Trinidad Corp., 992 F.2d 996, 996 (9th Cir. 1993)

("[W]ives of injured mariners may no longer sue the ship for damages for their nonpecuniary 

losses, if any, caused by the injuries to the spouse.").1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 8, 2015

______________________________________

 VINCE CHHABRIA

 United States District Judge

 

1

The plaintiffs argue that the reasoning of Miles should be limited to suits by seamen against their 

employers. See Docket No. 140 at 9. But the Ninth Circuit has rejected this argument. See Davis 

v. Bender Shipbuilding & Repair Co., 27 F.3d 426, 430 (9th Cir. 1994) ("The plaintiffs attempt to 

distinguish this case from Miles by stressing that the defendant in this case is the shipbuilder, not a 

'Jones Act defendant.' Yet there is nothing in Miles' reasoning to suggest that the decision turned 

upon the identity of the defendant.").

Case 3:11-cv-03240-VC Document 141 Filed 05/08/15 Page 2 of 2