Opinion ID: 2192445
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Improper Reference to Workers' Compensation Benefits

Text: In his opening argument, Reetz's attorney made the following statement: Now all of us are familiar with the concept of workman's compensation, because this is the remedy for a person who is working as an employee in a landlocked or shore-site employment situation   . [A] seaman is excluded from the general category of employees,    he has no right to any kind of compensation. This statement was improper for two reasons. First, our prior cases have made it clear that it is not relevant whether or not a plaintiff seeking recovery for personal injury has other remedies available and, therefore, the topic should not be raised before the jury. [13] Second, the last sentence of the statement is simply untrue; Reetz was entitled to receive maintenance and cure benefits. [14] If these were the sole errors committed, we would not remand for a new trial. The prejudice caused by reference to workers' compensation could have been cured by an instruction from the bench to the effect that sympathy or prejudice must not influence the jury's decision. [15] Such a readily cured error will not generally be reviewed unless properly preserved for appeal. In this instance there was no objection to the statement. The incorrect portion of the statement is also not a basis for reversal in this case because during examination of one of Kinsman's witnesses, the facts that Reetz had a right to maintenance and cure and that Reetz did receive such payments were clearly brought out. Any prejudice caused by the statement was thereby cured and the error rendered harmless.