Facts: Respondent Justin Endicott filed suit against petitioner Icicle Seafoods, Inc. in the Superior Court for King County pursuant to 46 U.S.C. §30104 after being injured while working as a commercial fisherman aboard one of Icicle Seafoods’ ships, alleging that Icicle Seafoods had been negligent and that the ship had been generally unseaworthy. After Endicott successfully moved to strike Icicle Seafoods’ motion for a jury trial, the trial court found in Endicott’s favor and awarded him damages. Icicle Seafoods subsequently appealed the trial court’s decision, asserting that it was entitled to a trial by jury. The Washington Court of Appeals certified the issue to the Supreme Court of Washington.

Question(s): Does the right conferred upon plaintiffs by 46 U.S.C. §30104 to elect between different forms of action create a right to select the mode of trial or a right to select whether the action is jurisdictionally based in law or admiralty?

Conclusion: Justice Stephens’ opinion for a unanimous Court ruled that while 46 U.S.C. §30104 permits plaintiffs to elect the jurisdictional basis for the action, it does not create a federal right to elect the mode of trial. Thus, as the right to a jury trial in negligence actions is guaranteed by the Washington State Constitution, the Court held that Icicle Seafoods’ motion for a jury trial should have been granted, vacated the trial court’s decision, and remanded the case.

Docket No. 82635-8 (from King Case No. 06-2-03016-8)

Petitioner: Icicle Seafoods, Inc.

(Counsel: Michael Alan Barcott, Kara Heikkila, and Thaddeus O’Sullivan)

Respondent: Justin Endicott

(Counsel: Anthony L. Rafel, Cory D. Itkin, and Philip Albert Talmadge)

Briefs:

Argument: Thursday, September 24, 2009 9:00am

[Source: TVW, http://tvw.org]

Decided: Thursday, January 7th, 2010

Prevailing Party: Icicle Seafoods, Inc. (Petitioner)

Vote: 9-0

Citation: Pending

Court: Madsen1 Court (2010-)

Alexander

Johnson

Madsen

Sanders

Chambers

Owens

Fairhurst

Johnson

Stephens
(Majority)