Claims Against Vessel Owners under the General Maritime Law
In addition to the Jones Act, seamen are protected by the General Maritime Law. The General Maritime Law is the historical accumulation of court decisions rendered by the admiralty courts throughout the years. It is Court made law as opposed to law made by Congress.
Under the General Maritime Law, every ship owner or operator owes to every member of the crew employed aboard a vessel the duty of providing a vessel in a seaworthy condition. To be a member of the crew it must only be shown that the maritime worker “assists in the function or mission of the vessel.”
If the vessel is found unseaworthy, any injury or accident which was sustained as a result of that unseaworthy condition imposes liability on the vessel owner or operator. That is, the vessel owner is responsible to pay the crewmember’s damages. The responsibility exists at any time, even though the owner or operator may have exercised due care under the circumstances, or may have had no knowledge or notice of the unseaworthy condition.
The obligation of the vessel owner to provide a seaworthy vessel is absolute and non-delegable; that is, the vessel owner cannot point the finger at a third party if an unseaworthy condition was present on the vessel.
As with a Jones Act lawsuit, a suit for recovery damages for personal injury or death under the General Maritime Law must commence within three (3) years that the cause occurred.
Unseaworthiness defined
In order to prove an unseaworthy condition, the injured maritime worker simply has to establish that the vessel was not reasonablyfit for its intended purpose.
Liability for an unseaworthy condition does not depend upon negligence, fault or blame. This is different than a negligent act in that, as mentioned earlier, the ship owner need not have knowledge or notice of the unseaworthy condition. Any condition which renders a vessel “unfit for its intended purpose” results in an “unseaworthy vessel.” Below is a list of typical conditions which have rendered vessels unseaworthy:
- Coast Guard violations appropriate to safety, manning and operations;
- Operational negligence, that is negligence which renders a vessel unseaworthy because of unsafe practices;
- Improper method of operation of vessel, her crew, equipment and appurtenances;
- Insufficient crew to fulfill mission;
- Carrying cargo which is inappropriate to the vessel capacity;
- A designate work schedule which is inappropriate or which overtakes the crew’s capability or efficiency;
- Defective hull, equipment or appliances;
- Proper use of vessel;
- Slippery decks, unsafe stairs, obstructions on deck and/or defective tools;
- Insufficient provisions or supplies for mission;
- Negligent orders; and
- Operating the vessel beyond specifications.
Benefits under the General Maritime Law – Monetary damages
Under the General Maritime law the injured crew member is entitled to be compensated for the following “damages” if his vessel owner provides an unseaworthy vessel and the unseaworthy condition causes the seamen “damages”:
- Physical pain and suffering, both past and future;
- Mental pain and anguish, includes humiliation, shame and embarrassment, worry and concern, and feelings of economic insecurity caused by disability;
- Physical disability, impairment of bodily functions, inconvenience, and the effect of crewmember’s injuries upon the normal pursuits and pleasures of life;
- Income lost in the past;
- Impairment of earning capacity or ability in the future, including impairment of normal progress in the crew member’s earnings;
- Medical expenses, including any reasonable and necessary expenses to the crew member for attention and care by physicians, surgeons, nurses or attendants, surgical, hospital and other services and care and supplies to have been incurred in the past or are reasonably certain to be required in future treatment of crew member’s injuries, their complications and residuals, if any;
- Found, i.e., the reasonable value of food and lodging which the crew member would have been afforded while working had he not become disabled;
- The reasonable value of any additional “fringe benefits.”
Defenses to Claim of Unseaworthiness:
A vessel owner may defend the claims against it by asserting that the damages were the result of the seaman’s fault, or that the damages complained of were the result of something other than an unseaworthy condition. A vessel owner may also argue that the vessel was not seaworthy or that the seaman failed to report the unsafe condition when he or she knew, or should have known, the condition posed a hazard.
The admiralty courts are reluctant to excuse a vessel owner when a seaman is faced with an unsafe condition and accepts to continue employment knowing of that condition. Historically, the courts sitting in admiralty recognize that working men and women are often times at the mercy of their employers in the harsh environment of the maritime. The Courts recognize that some maritime contractors refuse to yield to safety and require their workers to labor in unsafe dangerous conditions and with that recognition the Courts are hesitant to excuse much improper and unjustifiable conduct.