Maritime Worker Was "Seaman" Where Injured During Equipment Testing
In a recent unpublished decision, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Galveston Division, considered whether an injured worker was in fact a "seaman" for admiralty law purposes. The issue was contested by a defendant who asserted that it was entitled to a jury trial because the plaintiff sued strictly under state common and statutory law.
The plaintiff was injured aboard the vessel Hercules while the vessel rested within a protected boat slip, yet on navigable waters. The injury occurred during testing of rigging designed and manufactured by the defendant in preparation for a project to lift some 2,000 tons on-site in the Gulf of Mexico.
Two lifts were performed successfully, but certain rigging equipment failed during a third lift. Debris was scattered, causing injury to the plaintiff's hand and leg.
Immediately before trial in the subsequent personal injury suit, the plaintiff settled with his employer. The defendant rigging manufacturer then demanded a jury trial. This raised the issue whether the plaintiff's activity at the time of injury was so closely related to activity traditionally subject to admiralty jurisdiction that admiralty law should apply, with the result that no jury trial right would exist.
The court ruled that this was the case. The incident that gave rise to the plaintiff's injury was not merely "fortuitously and incidentally connected" to admiralty in such a way that it bore no relationship to traditional maritime activity. Rather, the court said, the injuries alleged by the employee fell within the type that occurred in maritime settings. Specifically, the plaintiff's employer was testing a rigging device constructed by the manufacturer for use in anticipated offshore lifts. That intended use was clearly known to the manufacturer, namely that its product was intended for offshore rather than land-based lifting.
Thus the plaintiff was a "seaman," the court had jurisdiction over all claims pursuant to the Jones Act and the General Maritime Law, and no jury trial was warranted.
The court went on to conclude that the plaintiff suffered some $1.9 million in damages due to his maritime personal injury during the failed rigging test.
To discuss a case with an experienced maritime lawyer, contact a maritime attorney online at Arnold & Itkin LLP, or call the maritime law office of Arnold & Itkin LLP toll free at 866-222-2606.
