Pablo Membreno

The plaintiff Pablo Membreno was a citizen of Honduras, who do worked as an oiler on the ravishs owned by rib Crociere, S. p. A ( costa), which was an Italian society whose headquarters were in Genoa, Italy. Costa fully owned another company Carnival Corporation, panama. Carnival Corporation was direct in Miami, Florida. Costa had no debark based offices in the United States. Membreno was employ on boil down by cruise Ships Catering & Service International, N. V. (CSCS), Netherlands Antilles, to work onboard Costa Atlantica, which began its cruise from Fort Lauderdale, Florida.While the post was in international irrigate, Membreno injured his radiocarpal joint in the course of his work. The plaintiff claimed that disrespect having reported the matter to the supervisor and the commits doctor, he had not been disposed medical treatment. Five days after, his contract was completed and he disembarked from the ship. In Honduras a surgeon diagnosed Membreno with Kinnocks d isease and recommended surgery. Membreno want a second opinion in Miami from an orthopedic surgeon, who performed surgery on the plaintiffs wrist.He also received tangible therapy. Procedural History Membreno filed a slipperiness in the Southern District judiciary of Florida attempting redress for his damage. The number of defendants in the miscue was four but later reduced to two upon a consensus of the parties to the case. Costa and CSCS invoked the doctrine of gathering non conveniens to move the woo for a dismissal. The govern cost disregard the case and Membreno appealed in the Eleventh electrical circuit Court. Issues legal questionThe legal issues increase were whether or not the plaintiff could seek redressal in US courts for an injury that had occurred in international waters, the area of applicability of the Jones mo and the world(a) Maritime Laws and whether such actions could be dismissed on the grounds of forum non conveniens. Broad holding The Jones Act and the General Maritime Laws apply only inwardly the territorial waters of the United States and the plaintiff will be precluded from filing agree at the location of a appurtenant company. Narrow holdingThe district court rejected the application of the plaintiff pursuance redress on the basis that he was injured in the international waters and the Florida company was merely a subordinate company. Doctrinal Reasoning In Szumlicz v. Norse Am. Line, Inc the court had held that if the righteousnesss of the United States were not applicable, then the action should be dismissed on the grounds of forum non conveniens (Szumlicz v Norwegian Am. Line, Inc, 1983). In Lauritzen v. Larsen, the Supreme Court primed(p) down a set of cardinal factors to be satisfied.These factors are the focalise of the wrongful act, the national flag under which the ship was sailing, the domicile of the injured party, the dwelling fructify of the ship owner, the location where the parties had entere d into the agreement, the approachability of a foreign forum, the law of the forum and the place of operations of the ship owner (Lauritzen v. Larsen, 1953 ). In the present case, six conditions had been in the esteem of the defendants and as such the defendants had argued that the United States law was not applicable to the plaintiff.Policy Reasoning The district court had properly interpreted and employ the doctrine of forum non conveniens in this case and the Eleventh Circuit Court upheld the finish of the district court. Miscellaneous There was no difference of opinion between the presiding adjudicate and the decision was unanimous. References Lauritzen v. Larsen, 345 U. S. 571 (1953 ). Szumlicz v Norwegian Am. Line, Inc, 698F. 2d 1192 (11th Circuit Court 1983).