Video Highlight: "Maritime Lawyers - Arnold & Itkin LLP"

Arnold & Itkin LLP  has released a new video on LawyerForYou.com. In this new video maritime attorney Lisa Sechelski introduces our law firm's Jones Act & maritime law practice. In it, you'll hear feedback from an actual client and listen as Lisa shares important information you should know if you or a family member are injured in a serious maritime or offshore accident.
 

Maritime lawyers at Arnold & Itkin LLP represent seamen, dockworkers, oil & gas industry workers, cruise ship workers, & others injured in maritime accidents at sea or on inland waters.

Could Virginia Construction Worker Qualify for Jones Act Benefits?

The accident site on Jones Mountain LakeA worker was killed in an industrial accident last Monday when the ten ton crane he was operating slid off the barge used to float the crane, causing the operator to plunge nearly 70 feet into Smith Mountain Lake. The incident occurred October 5, 2009, around 11:30 a.m.

Officials from the Franklin County Department of Public Safety identified the deceased as Roger Dale Goad, 55, of Henry County, VA. Goad had been employed for 34 years by Plyler Homes and Docks, who had been contracted to dismantle a private dock near a lake house. Both Goad and his son were working on the barge when the incident occurred.

"It's still under investigation, but somehow the crane came loose from the barge and sank into the lake," said department Capt. Patrick Meeks.

After nearly two hours in the water, rescue divers from the Lake Marine Volunteer Fire Rescue Department were able to locate and recover Goad’s body near the sunken crane.

Local police have initiated a full investigation into the accident. Plyler Homes and Docks stated they are working on a salvage plan to raise the sunken crane, which remains submerged in approximately 50 feet of water.

Continue Reading...

OSV Operators Await Changes to Jones Act

Operators of Offshore Service Vessels (OSV) supporting the offshore energy production industry are awaiting changes to recent Jones Act rulings from U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

The Jones Act is a maritime law, which states (among other things) that only ships built in American shipyards and that are owned and crewed by Americans have the right to transport cargo between U.S. ports. Recently, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) approved waivers that allowed certain foreign vessels to transport and install oilfield equipment in U.S. waters. Last summer, CBP announced plans to modify 20 rulings in order to restore the original intent of the Jones Act, which is to protect the U.S. maritime industry from foreign competition.

The CBP said it recognized the fact that “allowing foreign-flagged vessels to transport merchandise from one U.S. point and install that merchandise at another point on the condition that it merely be accomplished on or from that vessel would be contrary to the legislative intent” of the Jones Act.

Under the modified rulings, foreign vessels will still be able to install oilfield equipment, but they will no longer be allowed to transport the equipment from U.S. ports to the installation site. The previous rulings allowed foreign vessels to carry equipment to offshore oil and gas facilities as long as the same vessel installed it.

 
Continue Reading...

Crewman Injured After Dredge Runs Around in North Carolina

A crew member on a dredge suffered injuries when the tug and dredge ran aground in the Oregon Inlet in North Carolina.

One of the maritime workers fractured his femur when the dredge, Cooper River, ran aground. Crew members stabilized his leg and called the Coast Guard. Rescue crews arrived and the crewman was evacuated.

Dredges Qualify as Vessels

In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled, in Willard Stewarts vs. Dutra, that a dredge was also a vessel. The ruling rejected the argument that because the dredge in question was not in movement at the time of the injury, the worker was not eligible for damages. In that particular case, a marine engineer, Willard Stewart, who maintained a dredge for the Dutra Construction Company, was injured and sought personal damages from the company under the Jones Act and the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act. A Dredge Qualifies as a Vessel The district court, as well as the appeals court, found that the definition of a vessel did not include a dredge. The company argued that Stewart was not a seaman. It did, however, acknowledge that he was a member of the dredge's crew, that he spent 99 percent of his work time on the dredge, and that his duties contributed to the function of the dredge.  

The Supreme Court held that the dredge was a vessel under the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act. The Court ruled that because the watercraft was permanently moored and was not being used for “transport" in the general sense of the term, did not over rule the fact that the dredge was in navigation.

The maritime lawyers at Arnold & Itkin LLP represent workers who have been injured on dredges, towboats, tugboats, barges, and other vessels on rivers and inland waterways.

How Can a Vessel be Unseaworthy?

An unseaworthiness claim provides an injured Jones Act seaman, whose injuries occurred as a result of unsafe working conditions, one more option for compensation.

Every Jones Act seaman should know that unseaworthiness of a vessel entitles them to damages beyond their Jones Act claim. Unseaworthiness claims are filed against the vessel itself, not the employer. 

Typically, unseaworthiness comes about in the form of failure to provide a vessel that is reasonably fit for its intended purpose. As with everything else in the Jones Act, the definition of what is "reasonably fit" has also evolved over the years.

Unseaworthiness can arise when:

  • The working surfaces are not maintained properly.
  • There is not sufficient personal safety equipment on the vessel.
  • There is not sufficient fire safety equipment on the vessel.
  • There are not enough crew members.
  • The deck and walking surfaces are slippery.
  • Cables and lines are defective.  
  • Means for boarding the ship are unsafe.
  • An electrical wire is exposed.
  • Machinery and equipment fails, injuring seamen.
  • Unseaworthiness claims can also be said to exist if an intoxicated crew member assaults another seaman and leaves him with injuries.

A Temporary Condition can Be Regarded as Unseaworthiness

Maritime Vessel - UnseaworthinessSeamen can claim unseaworthiness even if the condition is temporary. In 1960, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a seaman who slipped and fell down a ladder because of a rail that was covered with fish slime. The slime remained on the rail from a previous unloading operation. The court ruled that the vessel owner's duty to provide a seaworthy vessel also applied to temporary conditions.  

The bottom line is that a ship owner is not required to maintain a perfect vessel, but is required to maintain a reasonably fit vessel for its purpose. The unseaworthiness doctrine includes every part of the vessel. That means every component of the vessel, from the hull, machinery, and tools on it, to the seaman’s living quarters and the food they eat, must be safe.

Take the example of a vessel that runs out of supplies and docks for restocking. A crew member is sent to shore to shop for supplies and is injured in an accident on shore. The seaman may be eligible for an unseaworthiness claim because the boat was not well stocked with supplies and the seaman was working in service to the vessel, trying to get supplies.

Complex Maritime Law

As you can see, there are several ways a vessel owner may be liable for a seaman's injuries. Very often, claims for unseaworthiness and negligence overlap each other. That is just one reason it is important to consult with a maritime lawyer who understands all the intricacies of the law.

 
Continue Reading...

Jones Act Rights: Aggravation of Pre-Existing Medical Condition

One of the rights of a Jones Act seaman is compensation for aggravation of a pre-existing medical condition that occurs in service to a vessel.

Work aboard a vessel is stressful and can involve long hours, repetitive work, and severe physical and mental strain. All of this can exacerbate an existing medical condition. When this happens, the employer may be responsible for the worsening of a seaman’s medical condition.

Maritime VesselThis is why the employer, upon contracting the seaman’s services, will try to assess the seaman's medical condition and history and determine if he suffers from any illness or injury. However, a seaman who willfully conceals an illness or serious injury may not be eligible for benefits if the condition worsens. However, if a seaman was not asked about illnesses or injuries at the time of hiring, he may not be at fault for concealment. Courts are sometimes lenient in regards to a seaman’s failure to disclose illnesses or injuries, because the seaman may believe, in all honesty, that he is completely medically fit for the job, in spite of previous injuries or illnesses.

Employers may be liable for aggravation of a pre-existing medical condition, if the condition is disclosed. For example, if a seaman suffers from epilepsy and conceals this from the employer after being asked about his medical condition, and the epilepsy is aggravated by the stresses of working at sea; then the employer may not be liable for the exacerbation of the condition. On the other hand, a seaman who tells his employer he suffers from epilepsy may be eligible for aggravation of a pre-existing medical condition compensation if the condition worsens in service to the vessel.

These matters are very complicated and it is important to consult with a Jones Act lawyer to understand if you have a claim. 

 
Continue Reading...

Maritime Companies Rule out Arming Workers to Prevent Pirate attacks

Gangs of Somali pirates have turned their attention to American vessels with two attacks on our ships in April alone, but maritime companies have ruled out the option of arming their workers to deal with this deadly threat.

Representatives of shipping companies at a maritime conference in Singapore indicated that they are not keen on arming their workers with weapons to deter armed Somali pirates. These dangerous gangs are comprised of highly sophisticated criminals armed with modern automatic weapons, and their attacks have shown a strong bent of mind and careful planning. Currently, sailors navigating the waters in the Gulf of Aden are forced to prop mannequins dressed in military fatigues and holding fake weapons to fool pirates. Obviously, dummy military personnel have done little to ward off attacks by the gangs. Somali pirates have been attacking international vessels more frequently than ever before.

Maritime Industry Decodes Against Arming WorkersAt the Massachusetts Maritime Academy, President Admiral Rick Guenon is calling for increased action to protect ships and crew from pirate attacks. These actions include arming the crew members of vessels and increasing the number of warships in pirate infested waters. However, arming maritime workers is a sticky issue the Coast Guard is not in favor of. According to Coast Guard representatives, maritime workers are not trained to handle weapons. They also worry about the risk of liability when workers are allowed to carry sophisticated weapons.

It is clear that propping mannequins on the sides of ships, using water hoses to remove ladders pirates use to board ships, and other antiquated measures are doing little, if anything, to deter these gangs. We are looking at an international maritime security problem and so far, there are very few answers that can help keep our sailors, deckhands, cruise ship crew, house keepers, stewards, and other maritime workers safe.

Maritime lawyers must get more involved in demanding a safer and more secure working environment for workers who are at risk of life and limb in these pirate infested waters.

FBI Building Maritime Coordination Network to Boost Security

The FBI has limited experience in maritime security, but after the recent increase in threats posed to maritime workers and crew from pirates, the agency is building relationships with maritime companies in an effort to enhance its security programs.

The agency, from its Maritime Liaison office in Florida, is focusing on the commercial cruising industry, yacht and boating industry, cargo lines, and other maritime related industries. The intention is to increase the FBI's ability to gather intelligence. Cargo vessels and cruise ships, for instance, are much more likely to observe suspicious behavior and can report to the FBI, enabling the agency to take important steps in protecting maritime workers and our ports. Maritime Safety and the FBIThe agency plans to develop a comprehensive maritime network that can receive information from vessel lines and other sources, and then use the information to ward off any threats. The agency has established maritime liaison officers at all its field offices that have connections to the maritime industry.

Specific activities that the Florida FBI Maritime Liaison Center has investigated include major security threats like:

  • Hijacking
  • Bomb threats to vessels
  • Smuggling of weapons, explosives, and drugs

Also, the agency is monitoring suspicious activities, like photography and dubious purchases, like night vision equipment and underwater delivery systems. The agency is looking especially at such activities by people belonging to countries that have a history of threatening the U.S. In addition to these, the FBI is also investigating murders, assaults, suicide, and other matters that fall under maritime jurisdiction.

FBI Can Assist with Maritime Security Issues

With its reputation for efficiency and diligence, the FBI has a huge role to play in ensuring the security of maritime workers. Workers on cruise ships, cargo vessels, and crew members of yachts and luxury boats are at greater risk of danger on the seas than in previous decades. Years after 9/11, terrorism continues to be a threat to our country and maritime workers at sea are at an increased risk of dangers from such activities. The recent pirate attacks on American vessels have also increased the need for top level federal assistance for providing security to workers. 

As maritime lawyers, we believe such involvement of the country's top investigating agency is extremely important for the security of maritime workers.

If you have any questions regarding a maritime incident, contact a maritime attorney at Arnold & Itkin LLP for a free consultation.

Galveston Port Secures $28.1 Million Loan for Maritime Improvement Projects

Part of providing a safe working environment for maritime port workers is maintaining work areas. Maritime workers at the Port of Galveston can look forward to extensive renovations now that the port has obtained a $28.1 million loan from the state.

The loan comes courtesy of the Texas Industry Development (TID) Loan Programs, a state-sponsored program that offers low cost financing for development projects. According to port officials, half of the loan will go toward channel deepening projects, which will allow the port to handle larger vessels. The rest of the funds will be used to conduct repairs of severely damaged bulkheads. Port officials hope these enhancements will allow the Port of Galveston to handle lucrative cargo, like vehicle shipments. Port officials are now looking for firms who can start repairs on the deteriorated bulkheads. They will also begin the process of seeking tenders for the channeling deepening projects soon. Maritime Injury AttorneyThe enhancements are expected to bring in more than $400 million in extra revenue for the port and could lead to the creation of more than 2,000 jobs. That is good news, not only for the port and its maritime workers, but also for the larger Galveston community.

The port sustained major damage when Hurricane Ike hit the coast last year. When the waters receded, damage included waterlogged sheetrock and soggy cargo facilities, among other things. The port's Board of Trustees handed director Steven Cernak emergency powers to release $55 million for repairs. With the new loan in place, the Port of Galveston will be able to ensure, not only increased cargo handling facilities, but also a safer work environment for port and maritime workers.

Maritime Laws

Port workers who make a living loading and unloading, stowing and securing cargo, and other port activities are protected under maritime law. Workplace enhancements will surely help these workers conduct their duties efficiently and safely.

Port workers who are injured in an accident can secure compensation with the help of a maritime lawyer. If you've been injured in a maritime accident, contact a maritime lawyer at Arnold & Itkin LLP for a free consultation.

Florida Maritime Accident Results in Oil Spillage, No Injuries Reported

A Port of Tampa maritime accident involving a tugboat pulling a barge and a moored tug, resulted in approximately 1,000 gallons of waste oil spilling into the port.

According to reports, the accident occurred when the tugboat, Katherine Ann, was pushing a barge and collided with the tug, Liberty, which was moored at the dock at Causeway Boulevard. The accident led to 1,000 gallons of oil spilling into the water. The Coast Guard is supervising cleanup operations and is conducting an investigation into the collision. Maritime Accident AttorneyThe company that owns one of the boats, Diversified Environmental Services, is located near the dock and was able to respond to the crisis immediately. The quick response helped prevent damage to marine life and the environment. No injuries were reported in the collision.

For maritime workers and Florida maritime officials, oil spills likely bring back memories of the Tampa Bay oil spill of 1993, in which 300,000 gallons of oil and 33,000 gallons of jet fuel spilled into the water. That oil spill was also the result of a collision and involved three vessels at the entrance of Tampa Bay. One of the vessels was carrying close to 8 million gallons of diesel, jet fuel, and gasoline. Upon colliding, a fire quickly broke out; it took firefighting teams more than 16 hours to control the inferno. No one was injured in the accident, it was, however, responsible for Tampa Bay's largest oil spill to date. The environmental damage from that accident was fairly limited, considering the size of the spill. The fact that just months before the spill, emergency plans for oil spill disasters were put into place helped control the damage.

Maritime collisions can be the result of various factors, including:

  • negligence on the part of crew
  • failure of port authorities
  • weather conditions

In recent years, some high profile maritime collisions have been linked to crew failure. The 2007 Cosco Busan accident with the San Francisco - Oakland Bay Bridge was the result of a medically unfit pilot and lack of communication between he and his captain. Also, the 2008 collision of the of the tugboat, Mel Oliver, and the oil tanker, Tintomara, was ultimately attributed to a captain who abandoned ship a few days before the accident, leaving the tugboat to be piloted by an apprentice mate who was not equipped for the task.

Maritime Accident Claims

Maritime accidents, as the above incidents show, are not always the result of employer errors, but can also be caused by the incompetence, negligence, and failure of crew members. However, even if an accident is caused by a co-worker's negligence, the employer is still responsible for any injuries that result. Injured workers in such cases are eligible for all the benefits promised to them under the Jones Act or other maritime laws. It is important that workers be aware of their rights before they settle for compensation. A maritime attorney can help you do just that.

If you've been injured in a maritime accident, contact a maritime lawyer at Arnold & Itkin LLP for a free evaluation of your claim.

Sikorsky Helicopters Grounded after Offshore Maritime Accidents

After a maritime helicopter accident that resulted in the deaths of Canadian offshore workers, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has moved to issue a safety directive, requiring gear box repairs of Sikorsky’s S-92 helicopters.

On March 12th a helicopter crashed off Newfoundland in Canada, killing 17 offshore workers. The crash has been linked to broken titanium studs that connected the gear box to the oil filter system. The FAA directive calls for emergency repairs of gearboxes on all U.S.-registered Sikorsky helicopters. According to the directive, the “unsafe condition” probably exists or is likely to develop on other Sikorsky helicopters. According to a representative of United Technologies Corp., whose Sikorsky unit manufactures the helicopters, the company has already replaced the defective stud in at least 59 of the 91 S-92 helicopters currently in operation.

Maritime Accident AttorneyAfter the Newfoundland helicopter crash, investigators began to look into whether the stud fractured before the crash or was smashed during the accident. A broken stud can lead to loss of oil pressure, potentially resulting in a gearbox problem and eventually loss of control of the chopper. Investigators have now determined that the titanium studs are indeed prone to fracture. The studs in the Newfoundland accident are believed to have fractured during the flight. In January, Sikorsky issued an alert asking helicopter operators to replace the titanium studs with steel ones.

Earlier this year, a Sikorsky S-76C helicopter carrying offshore workers crashed near Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana. The cause of that accident is still under investigation, but according to the National Transportation Safety Board, the crash could have been the result of a collision with a bird.

The Newfoundland crash, meanwhile, has caused several employees working in the offshore oil industry in Newfoundland and Labrador to consider quitting their jobs. The accident has caused many maritime workers there to rethink the nature of their jobs and weigh the perks with the risks.  The Sikorsky S-92 that crashed off Newfoundland has a reputation for being a highly advanced aircraft with sophisticated safety systems. The realization that these supposedly, advanced craft have fractured studs ultimately, responsible for the deaths of 12 offshore workers, has unsettled many maritime workers.

Maritime Lawyers

Helicopter operators who ferry offshore workers to and from shore need to make sure their aircraft are free of defects and are safe to use. Accidents like these can be avoided with stringent safety evaluations and check ups. People in the maritime industry, which is dangerous by nature, should not have to worry about making it to work safely on top of worrying about work safety.

If you have been injured or have lost a loved one in an offshore helicopter accident, a maritime attorney can help you. Contact a maritime lawyer at Arnold & Itkin LLP for a free evaluation of your claim.

Appeal Hearings in Louisiana Maritime Accidents Damages Case Begin

An appeals court in Louisiana began its hearing of an offshore drilling company's objection to maritime damages awarded to a man who suffered post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after being involved in a jack up rig collapse accident.

Lonnie Cortney Campbell was one of several workers aboard the Parker Drilling Offshore USA jack up rig that partially collapsed on September 11th, 2003 off the Louisiana-Mississippi coast. The accident, which occurred while jacking up operations were in order, did not result in any fatalities. As the rig buckled, Campbell was thrown from his bunk and had to jump into the water. On top of, already terrifying events, Campbell did not know how to swim. Maritime Injury AttorneyHe suffered intense terror, unsure if rescue would arrive in time or if the rig would collapse on him. He suffered injuries to his wrist and back, but the emotional scars ran deeper. He has suffered from severe post traumatic disorder since the accident. In 2007, Campbell was awarded $952,966 including 200,000 in damages for PTSD.

The company appealed the verdict and insists that Campbell's physical injuries were the result of “preexisting conditions”. The company's attorneys have asked personal injury damages to be reduced and recalculated based on a lower federal interest from the date of the accident.

PTSD is an anxiety disorder that usually results after a person has been through a terrifying physical ordeal like an assault or an accident in which there was a physical threat. The disorder came into the spotlight after the Gulf War in the early 1990’s, when soldiers who returned from active combat began to suffer from nightmares, sleeplessness, anxiety, and socially withdrawn behavior. The symptoms of PTSD may not become evident for weeks after the incident, when they do surface they can include:

  • Sleeplessness
  • Anxiety
  • Nervousness
  • Disinterest in social relationships
  • Flashbacks of the or deal
  • Panic attacks
  • Drug or alcohol abuse

Maritime Accident Compensation

After a maritime accident, injured workers may be eligible for, not only immediate and short term medical expenses, like doctor bills and hospitalization expenses, but also medical expenses over the long term. An example of this would be treatment and counseling for post traumatic stress disorder, which usually results after a worker has experienced a serious life threatening accident. In Campbell's case, although his physical injuries were immediately visible, and therefore, could be mentioned in a maritime accident claim, the long term anxiety disorder that surfaced later was not as obvious. For this reason it is important to sit down with a maritime attorney before you decide to file a damages claim against an employer. An attorney may be able to include all expenses over the short and long term, so you get the complete compensation you deserve.

If you've been injured in a maritime accident, contact a maritime lawyer at Arnold & Itkin LLP for a free evaluation of your claim.

Twenty Years after Valdez Maritime Accident Exxon Continues to Hire Single Hull Tankers

Twenty years after the Exxon Valdez maritime accident which resulted in the worst maritime environmental disaster in U.S. history, the company continues to use single hull ships. After nearly 80% of super tankers in the world have been replaced by double hull tankers, Exxon continues to use unsafe, single hull ships.

On March 24th, 1989, the Valdez spilled 11 million gallons of oil into the Prince William Sound in Alaska. The tanker, which was on its way from Valdez to Los Angeles, California, ran aground, rupturing its hull and, ultimately, dumping oil into the ocean. It remains one of the most devastating environmental disasters in the world, with the oil slick reaching out to cover 11,000 square miles of the ocean. The short term effects of the spill were extensive; hundreds of thousands of animals and birds were killed instantly, including:

  • seabirds
  • otters
  • harbor seals
  • orca whales
  • fish eggs

Since then, the maritime wildlife in the area has continued to suffer from the long term effects of the oil spill including:

  • stunted growth
  • increased deaths rates

Maritime experts believe that we have yet to see the end of the Valdez impact. In a lawsuit filed against the company, it was revealed that the ship's captain had been drinking alcohol earlier that evening and left the bridge unmanned during the accident.

Ship design experts believe that if the Exxon Valdez had a double hull instead of a single hull the devastating impact of the spill could have been lesser. Double hull tankers come with a one inch thick exterior layer of steel that can absorb impact in the event of a maritime accident; the inner layer of steel is thus unharmed and can contain oil that otherwise would leak out.  Single hull tankers, on the other hand, come with a single layer of steel, when this layer is damaged there is nothing to stop oil from spilling into the ocean.

Maritime Injury AttorneyAcross the world, 115 countries have promised to ban single hull ships by 2015. In the U.S., single hull tankers are required to unload at the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port or other designated unloading points until 2015 comes around. Even as the world moves to avoid another massive and environmentally destructive maritime accident like the Valdez spill, Exxon continues to use single hull tankers. In 2008 alone, Exxon Mobil Corp. hired more older, single hull tankers than the other top ten oil companies combined. The company insists that the cost of hiring double hull tankers is not the reason for its failure to bring them into operation. Double hull tankers can cost up to 20% more to hire than single hull ships.

The Valdez disaster resulted in no injuries to workers aboard the vessel during the accident. However, the workers hired to take part in the clean up process suffered long term damage. These people ended up with oil accumulation in their lungs and blood. They suffered headaches and nausea, and some continue to suffer nose bleeds, lung problems, and several other mysterious illnesses that surfaced when they finished work on the clean up. Dozens of workers filed injury lawsuits. It is estimated that there could be thousands of workers who were injured by exposure to the toxic chemicals used to clean up the oil slick. Because Exxon did not allow government investigators to access medical records, those numbers may never be confirmed.

Maritime Injury Attorneys

Large oil companies have the ability to quickly cover up their negligence and avoid having to pay out damages in a maritime accident claim. These companies have access to teams of high dollar attorneys, therefore, it is important for you to be represented by an expert maritime attorney when you proceed to file claims against a company like Exxon. Even if you do not intend to file a claim, it is important to discuss your case with a maritime lawyer to evaluate all your options.

If you've been injured in a maritime accident, contact a maritime injury attorney at Arnold & Itkin LLP to discuss your case.

Maritime Fire Accident Aboard Galveston Ferry Boat

Galveston county fire fighters are investigating the cause of a Texas ferry boat fire that broke out in the engine room as the vessel traveling from Galveston to the Bolivar Peninsula. The March 21st fire resulted in no injuries.

The fire apparently ignited at 6:40 pm on the Gilchrist. The boat had just left the Bolivar landing when crew members noticed smoke from the engine. The boat was immediately turned around to return to the Bolivar landing. Fire fighters managed to extinguish the fire in half an hour. There were 65 to 70 vehicles on the ferry at the time of the fire, all of them were off-loaded without any damage. Passengers were not informed of the reason for the turnaround. Police continue to investigate the cause of the fire. The U.S. Coast Guard is also expected to visit the Bolivar ferry landing to conduct its own inspection of the Gilchrist.

Maritime LawyerFortunately, there were no injuries on board the Gilchrist. Fires on a water craft are often linked to explosions; the fire on the Gilchrist appears to have ignited in the engine. This can happen due to improper maintenance of the fuel system. Fires can also break out due to electrocution, when the vessel comes in contact with a live power line.

Crew members who work on ferry boats may be eligible for compensation under maritime laws in the event of an accident, because a ferry fits the definition of a Jones Act vessel.  Crew members working on the boat also qualify as Jones Act seamen under the provisions of the Act.

Why You Need a Maritime Attorney

Very often, maritime workers are not aware of their rights in the event of an injury or accident. For this reason it is imperative that ferry boat, cruse ship, and other vessel crew get in touch with a maritime lawyer immediately after an accident. An attorney will determine whether you fall under the purview of maritime laws and help you draft a damages claim. Damages can include medical expenses, hospitalization expenses, costs of rehabilitation, etc.

If you have been injured in an accident aboard a ferry boat, cruise ship, barge, or other vessel, contact a maritime attorney at Arnold & Itkin LLP for a free consultation.

Oil Rig Worker Files Maritime Lawsuit against Drilling Company for Fall Injuries

A maritime worker who sustained serious injuries as a result of a fall into a 4-foot opening on an oil rig filed a maritime lawsuit against Diamond Offshore Drilling in Jefferson County District court. The worker, Jesus Perez, was working on a submersible oil rig called Ocean Washington in March 2007 when the accident occurred.

The suit alleges that Diamond Offshore Drilling was responsible for the fall because of defective grading that resulted in the formation of the opening. At the time of the accident, the platform had been docked at a shipyard in Sabine and was undergoing repairs. Perez was involved in performing repair work when he fell into the opening. He was an employee of Prime Electrical Services which was hired by Diamond Offshore Drilling for the repair work. The fall left Perez with arm, shoulder, hand, and neck injuries. The accident resulted in extensive medical expenses as well as long term physical impairment. Perez also claimed:

  • lost wages
  • loss of future earning capacity
  • mental anguish
  • pain and suffering

He is seeking damages in addition to interest and other costs he sustains.

Oil Rig Accident AttorneyIt appears that the drilling company was negligent in providing a safe working environment for Jesus Perez. The opening of the platform that Perez fell into, according to the lawsuit, was the result of misplaced grading; the drilling company was responsible for making sure that such potential hazards were absent from the platform.

In the accident, Perez was not technically a seaman, but he is still eligible to receive compensatory benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. This act covers all people working on a vessel and engaged in repairs, unloading, and loading of cargo and other maritime activities. Workers covered under this act may be eligible to receive a benefits package that includes medical expenses, disability payments, and the costs of rehabilitation after an injury.

Maritime Accidents

Injured workers may not always be aware of their rights under maritime law, which is why it is important to seek the counsel of a maritime attorney before accepting the benefits package offered by a company. A maritime attorney can advise you on the kind of benefits you are eligible for, ensuring that you receive the full compensation you deserve.

If you've been injured in a maritime accident, contact the maritime attorneys at Arnold & Itkin LLP to answer any questions you may have about compensation.

Maritime Firm Involved in Mississippi River Accident Used Unlicensed Workers

Investigations into a massive 2008 oil spill on the Mississippi River reveal negative details about the practices at the shipping firm that owned the tugboat. The company apparently habitually used maritime workers who lacked proper licensing.

Former port captain, Jim Sellers, testified at a Coast Guard hearing in New Orleans. He explained that the company, DRD Towing, often substituted unlicensed personnel in place of qualified employees.  Maritime LawsuitWhen the tugboat, Mel Oliver, pushed an oil barge into the path of an oncoming ship last July, apprentice mate John Bavaret was at the helm. Bavaret did not have the licensing needed to operate the tugboat, he was "filling in" for Terry Carver, the captain of the ship. Carver, according his own testimony, jumped ship a few days before the tugboat accident to pursue his girlfriend in Illinois. He asked Bavaret to take his place at the helm of the tugboat. Bavaret's inexperience and lack of qualifications for the job resulted in an accident that ended with more than 280,000 gallons of fuel spilled into the Mississippi River. According to Jim Sellers' testimony, hiring inadequately licensed crew members was a regular practice at DRD Towing. The company, which closed down in August, had previously substituted an unlicensed deckhand for an apprentice mate. According to Sellers, he tried, on many occasions, to caution his employers at DRD Towing that the practice of staffing the vessel crew with insufficiently licensed personnel could end up causing problems for the company.

Sellers' testimony is part of investigations into the accident after which the Coast Guard will recommend appropriate penalties for those responsible for the accident. The Mel Oliver - Tintamora accident resulted in no injuries or deaths. The injury-free accident can be attributed to luck rather than any foresight or efficiency on Bavaret's part. The kind of indiscriminate hiring practices going on at DRD Towing were a maritime disaster waiting to happen.

Maritime Injuries

Very often, injuries on board a vessel are the result of the negligence or recklessness of employers, who create unsafe conditions for their workers in an effort to cut costs. For instance, DRD Towing's practice of hiring unqualified workers was an attempt to cut down on overheads by hiring cheaper labor. In cases like this, maritime injury victims can claim compensation for their injuries under the Jones Act with the help of a Louisiana maritime accident lawyer.

If you've been injured in a maritime accident, contact a maritime injury attorney at Arnold & Itkin LLP for a free evaluation of your case. 

Louisiana Seaman Files Lawsuit Alleging Failure to Provide Proper Medical Care

The maritime attorneys at Arnold & Itkin LLP are proud to represent a Louisiana maritime worker in a personal injury lawsuit against his employers for failure to provide proper medical treatment.

The seaman, David Charbonnet, filed the lawsuit under the Jones Act against his employers, Grand Oil and Gas, Laredo Offshore Services, and Laredo Offshore Constructors in January. Charbonnet was employed as a seaman on the vessel L/B Petite, Injured Maritime Workera Class 150 lift boat used for work on offshore drilling rigs and platforms. In March of 2007, when he began experiencing stomach pains, Charbonnet requested that his employers provide medical care; his request was denied. At the time, the vessel was just off the Jefferson County shore. Lack of immediate medical attention intensified Charbonnet's symptoms and, as a result, the seaman suffered extreme “physical pain” and “mental anguish”. Charbonnet was later diagnosed with ulcerative colitis. The lawsuit claims that the illness resulted in physical impairment, discomfort, distress, and mental anguish. It also alleges that the employers were negligent in: their failure to provide immediate medical attention, their failure to supervise crew and train employees, and their failure to provide safety equipment and a safe workplace.

Maritime Injuries

Offshore workers who regularly work many miles from land and away from families have a right to expect timely medical attention, if necessary. Medical care can include access to a doctor, as well as, access to any medications necessary to treat an illness. Offshore workers work in an isolated environment, far from the general community; this can easily cause emotional suffering when one falls ill or suffers an injury. Any delay in providing medical care to these employees can extend their suffering and leave them permanently debilitated. Failure to provide immediate medical care can, therefore, be the basis for a claim against a company. A maritime lawyer can help in drafting such a claim. 

If you have been injured in a maritime accident, contact a maritime accident attorney at Arnold & Itkin LLP for a free consultation.

Maritime Worker Killed in Florida Port Accident

A longshore worker was killed on the job while transporting cargo in Jacksonville, Florida. Investigations into the accident are being conducted by both Jacksonville police and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

According to a representative of the Jacksonville Port Authority, 51-year-old Gregory Daise, an employee of Coastal Maritime Stevedoring, was killed during vessel cargo operations on February 19th. The events leading up to and causes of his death are being investigated by Jacksonville police and OSHA. There is currently no additional information available on the details of the accident. Maritime Accident AttorneyCoastal Maritime Stevedoring LLC is a stevedoring company based in Jacksonville, Florida; the company provides loading and unloading services for various kinds of cargo, in addition to warehouse and marine terminal management. The company is capable of handling over sized and unusual cargo, including: military cargo, water crafts, locomotives, cranes and construction machinery. Daise was apparently involved in transporting cargo for Coastal Maritime at the time of the accident.

Maritime workers who perform essential activities related to the industry such as loading and unloading of cargo and repairs of equipment and machinery on any kind of maritime vessel, including platforms, rigs and ships are covered under a maritime law called the Longshore and Harbor Worker's Compensation Act. These employees are not technically Jones Act seaman because their work does not involve being stationed on navigable waters for long periods of time and they do not fulfill the criteria mentioned in the Jones Act. Often, longshore workers perform loading and unloading operations in the port and injuries received during such activities qualify for compensation under LHWCA laws. Longshore benefits cover injured workers as well as deaths. In case of death workers' dependents are eligible for benefits under the LHWCA.

Maritime Accident

Our team of Florida maritime attorneys at Arnold & Itkin LLP have represented hundreds of longshore workers who have been injured on the job. We have helped many recover physically, emotionally and financially from devastating accident.

If you've been injured in a maritime accident, contact a maritime injury attorney at Arnold & Itkin LLP for a free evaluation of your case.

Cosco Busan Maritime Accident Blamed on Pilot Incompetence

The Mel Oliver-Tintamora tugboat oil barge accident in Louisiana last year and the collision of the Cosco Busan with the San Fransisco-Oakland Bay Bridge in 2007 both resulted in massive oil spillage, affecting commerce in the region. Fortunately, no one was injured in either accident.

Much like the Mel Oliver incident, the Cosco Busan accident has been traced back to pilot's incompetence. According to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the Cosco Busan accident was caused by errors made by a pilot who was "medically unfit”. This, combined with a lack of communication between the pilot and the captain, led to the cargo vessel colliding with the Bay Bridge. The accident resulted in 53,000 gallons of oil spilling into the San Francisco Bay. Thousands of birds were killed and clean up efforts cost more than $70 million. Jones Act Maritime LawyerAccording to the NTSB, Cosco Busan pilot, John Cota, bore most of the responsibility for the accident due to his failure to read radar data properly. Also, at the time of the accident, Cota was, reportedly, taking as many as 11 different medications for various conditions, ranging from alcoholism to depression. The Board vocalized the reaction of many maritime attorneys when they learned the vessel's pilot was steering his 68,000-ton ship under the influence of prescription medication, explaining "How [he] got to stand on the bridge of a 68,000-ton ship and give directions to guide the vessel through a foggy bay and under a busy highway bridge, is very troubling." Cota, it now appears, failed to report the kinds of medication he was taking when his pilot's license came up for renewal. The NTSB also found the ship's captain Mao Cai Sun to blame due to his failure to communicate effectively with Cota. The shipping firm that operated the Cosco Busan, Fleet Management, is also being held responsible and is expected to be charged for violation of environment laws.

Poor oversight of ship crew's senior members can put the lives of other crew members and innocent bystanders in danger. Incompetence of pilots and captains, like Cota's conduct in a drug-hazed stupor, can cause other maritime workers on a vessel serious injuries. When injuries are caused by the negligence of other employees, workers may eligible for compensation from their employer under Jones Act laws. 

Maritime Injury Attorneys

The attorneys at Arnold & Itkin LLP have represented hundreds of maritime accident victims in Louisiana, Texas, Alabama, Mississippi and Florida. 

If you've been injured in a maritime accident, contact a maritime injury attorney at Arnold & Itkin LLP for a free evaluation of your case.

New Maritime Safety Laws Go Into Effect

A new maritime safety law that requires workers to have identification cards in ports and riverfront plants in Louisiana, Texas, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi and other ports around the country went into effect in much of Louisiana 3 weeks ago.

The rules, mandated by the Maritime Transportation Safety Act, require workers who need access to the riverfront to obtain a Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC). Having TWIC cards to identify workers is expected to enhance maritime safety. Those who fail to obtain the cards will have no access to their usual work areas until they get one. Under the rules, any one who wishes to access the dock or go through the riverfront Maritime Lawyerto report for work at a plant must have the TWIC. Workers who do not have the identification card will require an escort to access these areas. In Louisiana, the program went into effect on January 13th and will follow in all American ports by April 14th. Industries have been preparing for the roll-out for several months now and many of them report that their workers are equipped with the cards. Workers who have delayed in siging up for their card will spend several weeks being escorted to docks and riverfront facilities. This is because the procedure involves intensive background checks before the card can be issued. According to the Transportation Security Administration, approximately 800,000 workers have already registered for the identification card program and 1.2 million are expected to be equipped with the cards before the final deadline in April.

Across the region, other ports including, Houston, Texas City, Galveston, Port Arthur, Orange Beaumont and Port of Lake Charles are hard at work trying to comply with TWIC rules before the April 14th deadline. The ports of Corpus Christi, Brownsville, Victoria and Point Comfort met their compliance deadline November 28th of last year. The Port of Mobile Alabama District's compliance date was December 28th, while the Saint Petersburg Florida District and New Orleans District was January 13th. The rules that aim to bolster maritime safety at our ports apply to higher management at companies that work in these regions also.

Maritime Safety

Oil companies, drilling companies and other maritime employers are required to make sure that work conditions for their employees are as safe as possible, this includes providing a secure environment in light of the new threats our ports face.  Damages for maritime injuries suffered by a worker in the absence of such safe working conditions can be claimed under several maritime laws including the Jones Act, the Longshore & Harbor Workers' Compensation Act as well as other laws that protect maritime workers from employer negligence.  A Louisiana maritime attorney can help you evaluate your claim and get the compensation you deserve.

If you have been injured in a maritime accident, contact a maritime accident lawyer at Arnold & Itkin LLP for a free evaluation of your claim.

NTSB Files Recommendations after Texas Offshore Helicopter Accident

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) issued recommendations to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requiring offshore helicopters in the Gulf of Mexico to reevaluate their communication procedures in order to avoid accidents during high traffic periods, such as after a hurricane or other disaster. The recommendations came after a probe into a helicopter crash near Texas in 2005.

On September 6th, 2005, a Sikorsky S-76 helicopter with 8 Rowan Companies oil rig workers on board crashed into the Gulf of Mexico approximately 24 miles southeast of Sabine Pass, Texas. The helicopter had just taken off from a jack rig owned by Rowan Companies, and was on its way to the company's facility in Sabine Pass.  There were 2 other passengers on board, as well as a two-member crew. They were all able to safely make their way out of the helicopter before it submerged. Both pilots and 3 of the passengers suffered serious injuries in the accident, while the rest of the passengers suffered minor injuries. Fortunately, all occupants were wearing personal flotation devices, these helped them stay afloat in the waters Maritime Injury Attorneyfor close to 7.5 hours before help arrived. The investigation found that the accident was caused because of the pilots' slow response when the first engine failed. The board concluded that the slow response was probably due to high stress levels because of the timing of the crash - one week after hurricane Katrina made landfall. The chaotic conditions soon after Katrina hit caused delays in the communication network at Houston Helicopters Inc, the company that operated the helicopter. According to the Board's report, there were several violations at Houston Helicopters Inc. which contributed to the delayed rescue efforts. Post Katrina, other offshore helicopter operators serving drilling companies in the Gulf of Mexico made alternative arrangements, so they could continue supporting helicopter flights. Houston Helicopters Inc., however, failed to make any substitute arrangements. Instead, management at the company recommended that pilots use their own cell phones to transmit important flight information to the control center. The board also found that although Houston Helicopters Inc. had a record of 8 accidents, 3 incidents and at least 18 FAA surveillance violations, there were no follow ups made to check if the company was in compliance with rules regarding alternate methods of flight following procedures.   

The offshore helicopter crash near Texas could have ended in tragedy and the passengers and crew members were lucky to be able to survive with only injuries. They were, however, forced to undergo the trauma of waiting for several hours in the cold waters of the Gulf because of Houston Helicopter Inc's negligence. 

Maritime Accident Claims

Offshore rig workers are exposed to several risks when they use helicopters to travel from platform to shore as part of their maritime duties.  Injuries that occur during such air travel can make a worker eligible for compensation under maritime law. An expert maritime attorney can help workers determine their options for compensation.

If you have been injured in a maritime accident, contact a maritime attorney at Arnold & Itkin LLP for a free evaluation of your case.

New Iberia, Louisiana Man Appeals in Maritime Accident Benefits Case

A New Iberia maritime worker, who was injured while working aboard an off shore jack up drilling rig, was denied his claim for benefits and has now appealed to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, Louisiana.

Gary Dance worked as a supervisor for Ensco Offshore Company of Broussard, Louisiana. On the day of the accident he was working aboard an off shore rig called the Ensco 93. There were fewer workers than were needed to set rigging up and Dance, who was only required to supervise employees, had to join in the rigging efforts along with the other workers. As he bent down to pick up a C clamp, he injured his back and suffered extreme pain; doctors later diagnosed the injury as a herniated disc. Dance sued the company, claiming that on the day of the accident he informed his higher ups that the rig was short staffed and he would need more employees. He also asked for additional equipment, but the company ignored both his requests. Dance's lawsuit claimed that the oil rig was unseaworthy and that the company failed to provide him with a safe working environment. Last year, a court dismissed his $3 million lawsuit. He has now appealed to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Ensco was so confident they would win the appeal that their officials made a pitch for more workers as they left the court, citing their established safety record in the Gulf of Mexico.

Covered under Jones Act rights, oil drilling companies are required to make working conditions safe for employees, this includes making sure all processes are handled by an adequate number of trained staff members who have access to proper equipment. Failure to do this can result in unforeseen injuries like the one that left Gary Dance permanently disabled.

Louisiana Maritime Injury Attorneys

These large corporations have access to considerable financial and legal resources, which help them deny claims to injured workers. Going up against one of these companies for a benefits claim can be a tiring and time consuming process, therefore, it is necessary to have an expert Louisiana maritime attorney on your side, building a winning case for you.

At Arnold & Itkin LLP, we have years of experience representing maritime and off shore oil rig workers in benefits claims and lawsuits, and helping them recover the compensation they deserve.

If you have been injured on an off shore oil rig, contact a Louisiana maritime attorney at Arnold & Itkin LLP for a free evaluation of your claim.

Texas Ports Association Honors Senator Hutchison for Contribution to Maritime Safety

The Texas Ports Association has honored Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison as its “Person of the Year” for her contribution to maritime safety at Texas ports. Annually, the honor is awarded to individuals who support and work for the advancement of Texas ports, including making them safer and more efficient.

The state's ports are some of the busiest in the country with an estimated 20% of its deep sea traffic. Senator Hutchison, the only female senator to represent Texas in the Senate, has been a long time supporter of our ports. Some of her goals have been to boost the competency and efficiency of the ports, and increase the number of security personnel. According to Jim Edmonds, chairman of Port of Houston Authority, Senator Hutchison has always been involved in efforts to bolster safety and security at the ports and strengthen their functioning, so they can contribute to the economic success of the state and the country. Senator Hutchison has a position in the Senate Appropriations Committee and is also a Ranking Member of the Senate Commerce Science and Transportation Committee. Through her association with these committees, Senator Hutchison has been heavily involved in the improvement of the maritime industry. She was instrumental in passing the SAFE Port Act in 2006, which established a set of standards for containers arriving in the U.S. and allows inspection of containers at random. She is also a strong supporter of increased funding for Texas ports through the Port Security Grant Program which has channeled more than $2 million to the state's ports over the last 6 years.

Maritime Accidents

Longshore workers, who may work for a port, often toil in dangerous jobs like loading and unloading cargo or crane and derrick operations. These jobs are often far more dangerous than they need to be. Simply following safety guidelines can reduce a longshore worker's risk of falling, being hit by falling objects, being run over by cranes and other maritime accidents.

Longshore workers injured while performing non-marine activities like loading and unloading or repairing vessels and rigs may be eligible for compensation under maritime laws. An experienced Texas maritime lawyer can help you recover compensation from the parties responsible. 

If you have been injured in a maritime accident, contact a maritime lawyer at Arnold & Itkin LLP for a free consultation.

Louisiana Helicopter Crash Investigations Turn Focus to Oil Rig Workers' Safety

As investigations in the helicopter crash in Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana that killed 8 offshore rig workers continue, the safety of riggers and engineers who constantly use helicopters on the job, is receiving much needed attention.

The Sikorsky S-76 C helicopter that crashed 10 minutes after taking off, was carrying 9 workers from Amelia, Louisiana to an oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico owned by the Shell Oil Company. The helicopter was owned by PHI Inc.  The workers on board the helicopter were on their way to repair damages caused by Hurricane Gustav.  

The crash has turned attention to the safety of the hundreds of offshore workers required to frequently travel between rigs and platforms by helicopter. Air travel has not been a major cause of maritime accidents and fatalities in the oil and gas industry; one of the country's deadliest sectors. The mortality rate in this industry is estimated to be up to 7 times greater than in other sectors. Between 2003 and 2007, 526 people died on the job in the oil and gas industry; 20 of these died in air accidents. The biggest danger to workers in the industry comes from accidents in the field, such as being hit by falling objects, which alone causes more than 50% of all oil rig accident-related deaths. Over the past decade, the worker death rate in the industry has doubled from 15 deaths in 1999 to 30 deaths for every 100,000 workers in 2007. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the increase in the number of deaths in maritime accidents can simply be attributed to increased drilling activity. 

Helicopter Crash Maritime Accidents

In 2008, a Bell 206 helicopter headed to a drilling platform 18 miles off the coast crashed into the water, killing the pilot and 4 oil field workers on board. The accident is still under investigation. Everyday, hundreds of helicopter flights are routinely made, transporting employees to and from rigs and platforms. The majority of these end safely, but the risk of injuries and fatalities with this concentration of aviation traffic in the industry is very real, as proven by the Terrebonne Parish helicopter crash.

If you have been injured in an offshore accident, you will need expert representation by an experienced maritime lawyer to ensure that you recover the compensation you deserve from all parties. At Arnold & Itkin LLP, we have the skills necessary to successfully represent you. 

Contact an experienced maritime attorney at Arnold & Itkin LLP for a free evaluation of your case.

 

Flight 1549 Lawsuits Could be Governed by Maritime Laws

A maritime accident attorney believes that maritime laws could possibly apply to any civil lawsuits that may be filed by the passengers of U.S. Airways Flight 1549, which crash landed in the Hudson River on the 15th of January.

According to Manhattan attorney John Hession, the application of maritime law in the Hudson River crash would be appropriate because the jetliner landed in the Hudson River. At the moment of landing, the plane stopped flying and began to float like a vessel, therefore, any claims arising out of the accident should be considered under maritime laws that govern vessels on waters. This point of view has been corroborated by another lawyer who also says he would consider invoking maritime law if retained to represent any passengers on Flight 1549.

The universal admiration for the pilot and crew of Flight 1549, and the manner in which they were able to land the plane safely without any major injuries to the passengers has caused excessive media attention and, therefore, discussion of potential lawsuits. However, there have been no confirmed lawsuits filed. All 150 passengers and 5 crew members were safely evacuated from the plane before it began to submerge into the icy waters of the Hudson. The Coast Guard as well as ferry boats that were plying the Hudson River at the time, were able to mount emergency rescue operations within 15 minutes of the crash landing. Another reason there have been no lawsuits filed is the lack of serious physical injury caused to the passengers. However, emotional distress as well as the physiological impact felt in the moments before the crash could be considered grounds for a claims lawsuit. U.S. Airways has already made what some consider, a preemptive strike, sending all passengers a check for $5,000 to hold them over financially until they receive their personal belongings.

Not everyone agrees that maritime law could be applied to the Hudson River crash lawsuit. In the absence of any litigation action initiated by any of the passengers, most of these discussions over whether a crash landing on water constitutes a maritime accident could be just that – speculation. There has, however, been one precedent that could justify the application of maritime law to Flight 1549. In 2001, an American Airlines plane crash landed in Belle Harbor killing 265 people. A judge ruled that because the plane was carrying passengers over the ocean, and because the stabilizer fell into the water putting maritime commerce at risk, the case could fall under maritime jurisdiction.

 

Application of Maritime Laws

 

Maritime accidents refer to those that happen on a vessel – that includes a rig or platform - on navigable waters. There may be other rare and exceptional circumstances that call for the application of these laws. Only an experienced maritime injury attorney can help you decide the kind of laws that apply to your case.

If you have been injured in a maritime accident, contact a maritime injury attorney at Arnold & Itkin LLP to discuss the compensation and benefits you may be entitled to.

 

Electrician Files Lawsuit Against Houston Maritime Company For Injuries On Job

A DeWitt County electrician has filed a personal injury lawsuit against a Houston maritime company for injuries that he suffered on the company's vessel during the performance of his duties.  The lawsuit was filed in the Galveston County District Court against the employer, Diamond Offshore Services Company.

There are no details yet on the kind of injuries sustained, and the nature of the tasks the electrician Richard Dean Dewitt was performing when he suffered them. However, the lawsuit does claim that the injuries took place while Dewitt was engaged in work aboard the Ocean Clipper, a vessel owned by Diamond Offshore Services Company, and that the vessel was unseaworthy. As a result, Dewitt suffered injuries to his back and other parts of his body. The lawsuit claims damages for "severe pain, physical impairment, mental anguish, and distress." Dewitt, who was not able to work after the injuries, also incurred huge medical bills that he says the company was not willing to cover. He has requested a jury trial for his case.

Maritime Worker's Rights

Companies engaged in maritime activities with offshore refineries, oil rigs, cruise ships, fishing vessels, and other commercial activities performed on navigable waters, are required to maintain a seaworthy vessel at all times. Maritime workers must be provided safe work conditions in what can otherwise be a dangerous and unacceptably hazardous environment.

Under the Jones Act, if a company fails to provide such precautions, and a maritime worker is injured as a result, the company can be held liable for expenses and damages arising out of such accidents. Damages can include lost wages, as well as loss of future wages if the worker will be unable to work in the future. The company can also be liable for damages for mental anguish and suffering, as well as any physical disfigurement arising from the injuries. Besides Jones Act rights, workers may also be eligible for benefits under general maritime law. Maritime workers may not be fully aware of the scope and extent of statutes that exist to protect them, with the result being that they may settle for far less compensation than is due them.

Filing Maritime Injury Claims

Claiming damages for injuries while you’re engaged in work aboard a vessel requires a thorough understanding of Jones Act rights, and general maritime law statutes, and the ability to apply them to be sure you receive the full compensation to which you are entitled. The maritime lawyers at Arnold & Itkin LLP have helped hundreds of workers receive the compensation they deserve.

Contact an experienced maritime lawyer at Arnold & Itkin LLP for a FREE evaluation of your case.

 

Jones Act protects injured seamen

The Jones Act is a US federal law that protects seamen who are injured by the negligence of their employer or a crew member while working in service to a vessel.  For seamen who have questions about the Jones Act, answers can be found in the Jones Act information resources provided by the Houston, Texas maritime law firm of

Arnold & Itkin LLP

The website addresses questions about benefits provided under the law, who qualifies as a Jones Act seaman, and what vessels qualify as Jones Act vessels.

If you have questions about the Jones Act or other areas of maritime law, contact a Jones Act lawyer at Arnold & Itkin LLP.

Helicopter crashes into offshore drilling rig-- What law prevails: Jones Act, General Maritime, or other?

On Monday Reuters reported that a Ukranian helicopter operating in the Black Sea crashed into an offshore drilling platform killing all 20 people aboard.  The helicopter's rotor struck a steel fence rail on the rig during a landing attempt. The pilot lost control of the helicopter which then slammed into the rig and burst into flames.  No one on the rig was injured.

Circumstances of the accident raise questions about what body of law has jurisdiction.  Can injury or wrongful death claims be brought under the Jones Act or does General Maritime Law apply?  Without more details, the answer isn't necessarily clear.  Depending on the exact nature of the circumstances either may apply.

The fact that the workers were being transported to the rig suggests that they were maritime workers, and an aircraft which crashed into the sea would come under maritime jurisdiction.  But the helicopter crashed into the rig and not the sea.  Still, some cases have held that the crash of an aircraft engaged in a function traditionally performed by waterborne vessels, such as ferrying passengers from shore to an island or artificial island including offshore platforms, is within maritime jurisdiction.

Considering that they were working in the Black Sea, the workers may be foreign workers which means that US law such as the Jones Act would not normally apply.  General Maritime Law does however apply because it is not exclusive to the US and/or US territorial waters-- its scope is global.  However, if the rig is a movable rig, otherwise known as a Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit (MODU), and a US company is involved, then the workers may be covered as seamen under the Jones Act whether they were US workers or not.  It is possible for foreign seamen to be covered under the Jones Act and people working on MODUs are seamen by definition.

If you have questions about a matter of maritime law, contact a maritime lawyer at

Arnold & Itkin LLP

.