The Jones Act

Perhaps the most widely recognized legislation in the area of maritime personal injury is the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, more commonly known as The Jones Act. The Jones Act provides that the employer of the mariner is legally responsible for any damages sustained by an injured worker as a result of the negligence of the employer, a co-employee, or an agent of the employer. In brief, if a Jones Act employer, co-employee, or agent acts unreasonably (negligently) in its maritime activity and such action brings about harm to its employee, the maritime employer must compensate the worker for all damages he sustained.

History and Purpose of the Jones Act
The Jones Act, enacted by the United States Congress and found at 46 United States Code § 688, reads as follows:

Any seaman who shall suffer personal injury in the course of his employment may, at his election, maintain an action for damages at law, with the right of trial by jury… and in the case of death of any seaman as a result of any such personal injury, the personal representative of such seaman may maintain an action for damages at law with the right of trial by jury…

The Jones Act provides that a negligent maritime employer is responsible to compensate an injured worker for all damages sustained – dollar for dollar. The purpose of the act was to promote the maritime industries by encouraging young workers to leave the comforts of land-based employment to work offshore where they certainly face day-to-day challenges of lonely isolated work places in a hostile environment where high risk labor oftentimes results in loss of life and personal tragedy. The liberal and generous benefits of the Jones Act provides encouragement and comfort to those workers plying their trades offshore, The comfort comes from knowing that they will be cared for should they sustain harm offshore.

 

Benefits under the Jones Act – Monetary damages
Under the Jones Act the injured seaman is entitled to be compensated for the following “damages” if his employer is at fault:

  • 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 seaman’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 seaman’s earnings;
  • Medical expenses, including any reasonable and necessary expenses to the seaman 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 seaman’s alleged injuries, their complications and residuals, if any;
  • Found, i.e., the reasonable value of food and lodging which the seaman would have been afforded while working had he not become disabled;
  • The reasonable value of any additional “fringe benefits.”

 

Only Seamen are Covered Under the Jones Act
Most maritime workers who ply their specialized maritime skills trades aboard marine vessels in navigation are termed seamen. A formal definition of “seaman”, though, is important. The Courts have defined a “seaman” as follows:

“a worker who is permanently assigned to a vessel in navigation and contributes to the function or mission of that vessel with their unique maritime skills.”

Maritime workers who consistently face the “perils of the sea” on a day-to-day basis as they ply their specialized maritime trades aboard vessels which navigate the rivers, lakes and oceans are afforded the protection of The Jones Act. Workers with historically maritime trades, as well as those who engage in what could be considered non-maritime skills, are protected under the Jones Act as long as the labor was performed aboard vessel.

 

Trades Recognized as Maritime under the Jones Act
The admiralty courts also define seamen as “all those onboard whose labor contributes to the accomplishment of the main objective in which the vessel is engaged.” Various trades and disciplines are required to keep afloat the modern maritime industry. Thus, there are many different types of workers who are “seaman” under the law.

Obviously, able-bodied seaman (ABS) working on a crew boat or a second mate on a merchant vessel is viewed as a seaman. Commercial fishermen and food processors on commercial fishing vessels or floating processing plants are seamen.

Additionally, it is important to note that other “nontraditional” workers also qualify. For instance, hairdressers or bartenders on cruise ships or chefs on floating casinos are viewed as seaman. Welders or wire line operators on jack-up vessels are covered. Found aboard charter sport dive vessels, dive instructors, dive masters and dive guides are protected by the Jones Act.

Termed “brown water seaman,” oil field workers such as roustabouts on oil rigs or welders on pipe laying vessels also qualify as seaman. Crewmembers on ocean racing yachts and, historically, commercial divers (even those diving from oil platforms) aboard “non traditional vessels” have been afforded a special classification of seamen.
In today’s ever changing age of technology, computer software technicians and internet specialists would be viewed as seamen under the law.

In light of the varied trades and disciplines aboard countless types of today’s platforms in the maritime industry, it is impossible to provide an all-inclusive list as to who are today’s seamen. The admiralty law has consistently adjusted to the changing trades of maritime workers and will do so in the future. In short, if the maritime worker labors on behalf of a vessel, said mariner would fulfill the first requirement of seaman status. Which work platforms qualify as “vessels” is a question reserved for the Admiralty Courts.

 

Work Platforms as Maritime Vessels under the Jones Act
In today’s admiralty there exists a wide variety of work platforms. Most work platforms plying the maritime are viewed by the admiralty courts as “vessels.” Special purpose vessels, such as lay barges or drilling structures which are capable of movement are all “vessels” under admiralty law as long as the watercraft is used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water, though it is important to note that the watercraft “need not be in motion to qualify as a vessel”. It is important to understand how the courts analyze this legal inquiry.

Historically, the maritime courts have developed a list of objective features which suggests that a structure’s is capable of transportation across the navigable waterway; these vessel characteristics includes such features as:

  • Navigational aids;
  • Raked bow;
  • Lifeboats or other life saving equipment;
  • Bilge pumps;
  • Crew’s quarters; and
  • Registration of the work platform as a vessel with the United States Coast Guard.

If a watercraft is capable of or has a means of transportation over the water said structure is a “vessel” for Jones Act purposes.

 

Attachment with a Vessel in Navigation
The second requirement for a worker to be termed a “seaman” – attachment to a vessel in navigation – requires that the worker establish a significant relationship to a vessel. The required relationship or attachment must be substantial, both in nature and duration.

In imposing this requirement, the law seeks to differentiate between “land based” workers, who only periodically work offshore, and those maritime workers who make their living offshore as a matter of course aboard vessels. Only workers who consistently face the perils of the sea on a day-to-day basis are afforded the protection of the Jones Act. The requirement to be “more or less permanently connected to a vessel” is a very controversial issue for which the admiralty courts have long struggled.

If a maritime worker is consistently employed by an employer aboard vessels under the employer’s ownership or control on a day-to-day basis, the connection requirement would be easily fulfilled. If, however, a maritime worker works aboard different vessels for different companies periodically and on an inconsistent basis the courts may not afford that worker seaman status. Or, if the maritime worker performs what is customarily viewed as land based employment, such as work as a welder, crane operator or office clerk, such a maritime worker would not be viewed as a seaman if he or she did not consistently work aboard an identifiable group of vessels under the common ownership or control of their employer.

Admiralty courts have sought to limit seaman status of maritime workers if the employment aboard vessels is sporadic or transitory and the relationship to a vessel is not substantial. Generally speaking, the courts have seemed to identify as an appropriate rule of thumb that a worker who spends less than 30% of his or her time in the service of a vessel in navigation should not qualify as a seaman under the Jones Act. And while this 30% figure is only a guideline, it is viewed by the court as being instructive.

Determining whether a maritime worker does in fact fulfill the requirements of being permanently attached to vessel can be difficult and confusing. Each case will be determined on a case-by-case basis. Certainly, if a maritime worker consistently works and lives aboard vessels and performs most of his or her services aboard a vessel the likelihood of that maritime worker being termed a seaman is greater than a worker who only briefly or sporadically finds themselves aboard vessels they do not in fact “live a life offshore.”

 

Seaman Injured Onshore or in Transit to or from a Vessel
A common question posed by a maritime worker is “Am I covered under the Jones Act if my injury occurred while onshore?” Another important question is “Am I covered under the Jones Act if my injury occurred while in transit to or from my job offshore? “ The answer to both questions is a resounding “ yes”!

Offshore work typically occurs considerable distance from shore requiring that personnel be transported to and from the work site by crew boat or helicopter. With this transportation requirement, often over rough seas and through adverse weather, comes numerous accidents each year causing injury and death. Typically a maritime worker is injured as a result of the “pounding” he suffers on a crew boat in rough seas. Workers are also often injured when boarding or disembarking from vessels or while moving about on the vessel. Less frequent, but much more deadly, are the rare occurrences when a helicopter is lost or crashes, killing or injuring all on board. Finally, maritime workers are occasionally injured in automobile accidents occurring while in route to port.

Whether he is transported by land, air or sea, the maritime employee injured while in transit to or from a work site has a remedy in Admiralty law.

The admiralty courts have consistently found that if a seaman is injured during transit to or from a vessel provisions of the Jones Act apply. Of similar significance admiralty courts recognize Jones Act protections for seamen whose injury occurs onshore as long as the services rendered were in service of the vessel. Maritime workers have also been afforded coverage under the Jones Act while laboring in the office or in the “yard” in preparation for a vessel’s voyage as long as the worker was historically attached to the vessel previously and was providing services to that vessel when injured.

 

Maritime Negligence Under the Jones Act
The Jones Act requires that the employer act reasonably in its maritime activity and its relationship with its employees. The employer is required to provide its employees a reasonably safe place to work and security in hostile environments and locales. During a voyage the employer is also mandated to afford appropriate medical care and comfort to its crew.

A maritime worker is not, however, entitled to compensation for damages as a matter of right when an injury or death befalls the seaman in service to a vessel. In order to recover damages the seaman must prove that the employer, co-employee or agent of the employer was legally at fault. Under the provisions of the Jones Act an employer is “at fault” if it acted in a negligent manner.

A maritime contractor is negligent when it acts in a manner a reasonably prudent maritime contractor would not act. A maritime contractor is negligent when it failed to act in a manner a reasonably prudent contractor would act. The actions and inactions of a maritime contractor will be judged and viewed by the standard, rules, traditions and customs which govern the modern maritime industry.

Obvious standards such as those established by OSHA, the United States Coast Guard and other recognized safety authorities are methods to gauge or review the appropriateness of a company’s actions and procedures.

  • Warnings of a known or non-obvious hazard;
  • Proper medical care and treatment;
  • A competently trained and professional master and crew;
  • Maintained and serviced equipment, gear, appurtenances aboard a vessel;
  • Measures to void and/or lessen dangers associated with foul weather or heavy seas;
  • Prompt and appropriate assistance to a seaman in peril;
  • Security for seaman abroad or in transit to and from a vessel in hostile or dangerous ports;
  • Warnings and procedures in the handling of toxic or hazardous materials.

The above are only examples of negligence. Any improper or Unreasonable conduct may be defined as negligence.

 

Causation Under the Jones Act
Not all negligent conduct creates legal responsibility under the Jones Act. In order to recover for damages after establishing negligence, a maritime worker must next prove that the negligence was the direct (proximate) cause of the injury. It matters not that the company was simply running a shoddy ship or engaging in unsafe practices; in proving the employer was legally “at fault” it must be shown that the improper conduct was the cause of the accident. An example may be of assistance in describing this doctrine.

Assume that a company ignores the maintenance of a crane found on one of its vessels and the crane suffers significant hydraulic fluid loss. The failure of the company to repair and maintain the crane is “negligence.” If a worker injures himself working with the crane because he doesn’t pay attention to a moving load and the leaking of hydraulic fluid has absolutely nothing to do with the incident, the company will not be at fault. The improper conduct (negligence) must have caused the accident.

 

The Legal Defense of Comparative Negligence
As mentioned above, maritime employers have a legal obligation to act in a reasonable manner in their operations offshore. A mariner has a similar obligation to act reasonably. If the mariner fails in his duty he may be denied recovery or his recovery may be reduced to the extent of his action.

The legal defense to a claim of negligence under the Jones Act arises when the company demonstrates that the incident and subsequent injuries were totally or in part caused by the negligence of the maritime worker. If the worker acts unreasonably and such conduct contributes to his or her own injury such conduct is defined as comparative negligence.

In such a case, an award for damages will be reduced by the percentage of the worker’s negligent conduct. For example, if the maritime worker is 25% responsible for the accident and injuries, and the company is found responsible for 75%, the award for damages will be reduced by 25%.

By way of example, assume that a seaman is damaged to the extent of $100,000. If the seaman is found 25% at fault and his employer is 75% at fault the extent of the seaman’s recovery is $75,000.

 

Jones Act – Statute of Limitations – When must a lawsuit be filed?
A suit for recovery of damages for personal injury or death under the Jones Act must commence within three (3) years from the date of the incident in question. If a lawsuit is filed later than three (3) years, the lawsuit would be dismissed.

Where should the lawsuit be filed?
A claim under the Jones Act may be filed in state or federal court. The lawsuit may be filed where the incident occurred, the principal place of business of the employer or any location the employer does business.

The choice of where the claim is filed is a very significant decision and based on a number of unique questions such as “How long would one wait for a trial date?”, “What will the jury pool be like?”, “Can we expect to get a liberal or conservative judge?” These questions are best answered by an expert in such matters.