Court Opinion

ID: 9587646
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:24:42.33097+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:20.441724
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE COMPTON, with whom CHIEF JUSTICE CARRICO and JUSTICE LACY join, concurring.
*86I concur in the result in this case but not in the ratio decidendi. The opinion characterizes the nature of Mizenko’s action as a “federal maritime law negligence claim.” From this basis, this Court’s ruling proceeds to the conclusion that the exclusivity provisions of both the Federal and Virginia acts bar Mizenko’s action against Metro.
I do not agree that the plaintiff’s action is a “federal maritime law negligence claim.” In my opinion, the plaintiff’s claim is a common law negligence action, as so clearly articulated in JUSTICE LACY’s dissent in Mizenko v. Electric Motor and Contracting Co., Inc., 244 Va. 152, 419 S.E.2d 637 (1992), decided today.