concluding that application of federal maritime law can be waived by failing to object to the application of state law in jury charge and that General Chemical invited error by not objecting to, and then requesting, “the very issues that it now seeks to avoid.”
How later courts described this case
- concluding that application of federal maritime law can be waived by failing to object to the application of state law in jury charge and that General Chemical invited error by not objecting to, and then requesting, “the very issues that it now seeks to avoid.”
- recognizing, in case applying federal maritime law in Texas state court, that federal law “dictates the substantive law that governs that claim’s resolution” but does not affect state court’s jurisdiction over claim
- construing the almost identical definition of "claimant" in Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 41.001 and concluding that "when a party is seeking exemplary damages for the death of an individual, both the deceased and the persons seeking recovery are defined as a claimant"
- concluding that the application of maritime law can be waived
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CORNYN, Justice,
concurring.
[Filed June 3, 1993]
I agree with the court that there was some evidence of gross negligence presented in the trial court. I concur in the judgment rather than join the court’s opinion, however, because I cannot agree with the remainder of the opinion.