The Shoemake's appealed and the Court of Appeals found that the interest should have been based on the full $100,000. Today, in an opinion written by Justice Stephens, the Supreme Court unanimously upholds that decision.

We affirm the Court of Appeals and follow the approach favored by the majority of jurisdictions. In this case, calculating damages without deducting a negligent attorney's hypothetical contingency fee is an appropriate measure of damages. The Shoemakes had to expend fees on a second lawyer in order to finish the job the first lawyer neglected to do. The majority approach makes the plaintiffs whole without conferring a windfall.

(briefs and argument)

The decision is unanimous, and the opinion, written by Justice Stephens, includes a summary of the history of the Jones Act. On the jury trial question, the Ninth Circuit and California have held that the Jones Act grants plaintiffs "a substantive federal right to elect the mode of trial," while the Fifth and Seventh Circuits, Louisiana, and California, have found that while the plaintiff can choose "the jurisdictional basis of trial (in admiralty vs. at law) ... jury trial rights flow from this election as procedural incidents." While the trial court adopted the Ninth Circuit position, the State Supreme Court today sides with the Fifth and Seventh Circuits.

The Court holds that while the Jones Act grants Endicott the right to bring his case in state court, once he has made that decision, Washington's constitutional right to a jury trial applies. The prejudgment interest award is upheld, but only because it is permitted in a bench trial. The case is remanded for a new trial. (briefs and argument)