Jones Act Maritime Lawyer : Houston Jones Act & Maritime Injury Lawyer & Attorney : Arnold & Itkin Law Firm : Offshore Injury, Maritime Law : Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida

According to a Coast Guard spokesman, the Coast Guard, along with a team from the National Transportation Safety Board, will conduct an investigation to determine the cause of the tragedy.

“We, along with other agencies: the San Diego Fire Department, the San Diego Harbor Police and the NTSB will conduct a thorough investigation to try to determine what led to this tragedy and what can be done to prevent similar incidents in the future,” said Capt. Tom Farris, the Coast Guard’s San Diego sector commander, in a statement.

The officers aboard the rescue boat have been suspended from active duty pending the result of these investigations.

Most cases involving a maritime injury occurring on navigable waters, including accidents involving recreational boats, are categorized as “maritime law” or “admiralty law” cases. That is because both federal and state courts hearing cases such as this are required to apply maritime law instead of civil law, which most personal injury attorneys practice. Even if maritime laws conflict with state laws, state courts are required to give maritime law precedence under the ‘reverse-Erie doctrine’.

Another significant difference between civil and maritime law is that, with the exception of injuries to seaman protected by the Jones Act, there is no right to trial in maritime cases. In addition, unlike civil cases, a three-year statute of limitations applies to lawsuits that are brought for personal injuries or for death as a result of a maritime tort. Further, there is a two-year statute of limitations for actions brought against the United States under the Suits in Admiralty Act. As such, if the parties injured in this tragedy were to pursue a maritime injury case against the USCG, their attorney might only have two years to prepare and file the case.

It is extremely important, therefore, for persons injured in recreational boating accidents and are considering pursuing negligence claims to consult with a maritime lawyer with a proven track record as soon as possible.

The maritime attorneys at Arnold & Itkin LLP offer a FREE case evaluation by simply filling out the FREE Case Review form to the right (preferred) or by calling 866-222-2606.

Under maritime law, specifically according to the Unseaworthyness Doctrine, the owner of a vessel owes it to the members of the boat’s crew to provide a seaworthy vessel. Failure to do so makes the owner liable for compensation to any seaman injured on the unseaworthy vessel. Potential damages could include pain and suffering, loss of wages (current and future), retraining costs and the cost of medical and nursing services for the injured seaman.

A vessel can be deemed unseaworthy for a number of reasons, including but not limited to:

• Inadequate or improperly trained crew
• Defective, insufficient or unsafe tools and/or equipment
• Faulty design
• Unsafe work procedures, practices or conditions
• Improper training
• Excessive work hours
• Lack of qualified supervision

If a crewmember is injured, and a maritime attorney can prove the vessel on which the crewmember was injured was not seaworthy, then the owner of the vessel can be held liable for several forms of compensation.

Shipowners who operate crab boats off the shore of Alaska run a higher risk of having their vessels deemed unseaworthy, because the often-rough seas and the cold air and water conditions increase the chance that a maritime lawyer could prove the conditions to be excessively dangerous. If the owner of the vessel can’t prove that the necessary steps were taken to care of the ship’s crew, the chances that a court would rule in an injured seaman’s favor would increase. In addition to pain and suffering, and some form of compensation to cover lost wages (including lost future wages, if injuries require long-term absence from work), the shipowner also is obligated under admiralty law to provide maintenance and cure: free medical treatment until the injured seaman reaches “maximum medical cure” and basic room and board expenses until they either are able to return to work or the period of the voyage ends.

Not only do the rough water conditions make accidents a legitimate possibility, the cold temperatures above and below the surface also increase the likelihood of illness and cold-related conditions like hypothermia.

Also coming into play are maritime laws like the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA) and the Jones Act.

If an accident occurs more than three miles offshore (in international waters), the case could fall under DOHSA protection. DOSHA was passed in 1920 so that the surviving family members of seamen who died while working in international waters could receive compensation for the loss of the deceased’s future earnings.

However, it’s more likely that the case of an injury to a seaman working in the Alaskan crabbing fleet would fall under the Jones Act, which applies to accidents on either side of the three-mile boundary, as long as the vessel on which they were working was on navigable waters. To qualify for Jones Act coverage, an injured Jones Act seaman or his surviving family must prove the seaman was a U.S. citizen and a regular member of the vessel’s crew (a label given to those who work at least 30 percent of their available working time on a single vessel or fleet of vessels under common ownership). If crewmembers are aboard for extended periods of time for a long trip, they obviously fall under the required “regular crew member” label, as is required in all Jones Act claims.

This year’s crabbing fleet is expected to be larger than in years past. Prior to the start of crabbing season last week, the Coast Guard Marine Safety Detachment in Unalaska conducted exams aboard 41 of the 93 vessels. No overloading of pots was noted. A few deficiencies — including expired life rafts, hydrostatic releases and Electronic Position Indicating Radio Beacon batteries — were found during the Coast Guard safety checks, but were corrected prior to the vessels getting underway. Proof of a favorable Coast Guard inspection could be useful evidence in any claim filed against a shipowner.

In the case of the Alaskan crabbing fleet, more than 20 fishermen attended Coast Guard safety training at the community pool and local harbor in Unalaska, where topics included proper use of life rafts, survival unit and flare training. Twelve fishermen attended the Unalaska damage control training and several vessel captains requested that Coast Guard examiners conduct emergency drills aboard their vessels prior to the start of the crabbing season.

No amount of training and safety preparation, of course, guarantees the elimination of accidents, so in the event of an accident, seamen or their surviving family will need representation by an accomplished maritime lawyer who specializes in cases dealing with the Jones Act and maritime law.
 

Also worth considering:

• Does the boat have a policy about crew members wearing life jackets? If so, why wasn’t the missing man wearing one? If such a policy was in place and he simply chose not to, could that limit, or perhaps eliminate, the shipowner’s liability. However, ships are required to have life jackets for each person on board, and if a maritime attorney can prove that not enough life jackets were provided, the liability in the case likely would be judged to have fallen back on the vessel’s owner.
• If life jackets were available and not worn, could the water conditions dictate the level of liability for the owner? A maritime attorney might argue that mild water conditions reduced the need for the missing man to wear his life jacket, but if the vessel has a known or posted policy, that argument likely would carry less weight.
• Was Si Se Puede seaworthy for the conditions in which it was operating? If the vessel were judged unseaworthy, the shipowner could be deemed negligent, and as such, would likely be liable to compensate the missing man’s surviving family.
• Did the vessel have adequate gear for handling a man overboard situation, such as a throwable PFD, an emergency beacon (EPIRB), and a MOB recovery system (e.g. Lifesling)? Was the crew adequately trained and prepared for a MOB emergency? Was a crew member designated as a watchkeeper? All of these could have a bearing in determining whether any negligence was involved in this accident or not.
  
  Since the missing seaman was the master of Si Se Puede, any claims seeking compensation likely would fall under the Jones Act. In order to seek Jones Act coverage, a seaman or his surviving family must prove that the seaman was a “regular” member of a crew in service to a vessel on navigable waters. The current court ruling defines “regular” crew members as employees who spend 30 percent (or more) of their available working time on a single vessel or fleet of vessels under common ownership. Since the accident occurred approximately 20 miles off the coast, the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA) would also apply. However, an experienced maritime lawyer would likely prosecute a Jones Act claim due to the higher awards provided to Jones Act seamen or their surviving families under that statute.

Maintenance and Cure

Admiralty law, also known as maritime law, gives injured seamen certain rights beyond the usual worker’s compensation benefits afforded to landlocked workers.

For example, the admiralty law principal of maintenance and cure obligates vessel owners to provide for crew members that are injured or become ill while in service to their vessels. So even if the fisherman suffered a stroke through no fault of the vessel’s owner, the owner is still required to provide maintenance and cure benefits.

Cure


The concept of ‘cure’ is the seaman’s right to free medical treatment until they are either fit for duty or reach ‘maximum medical cure’. Maximum medical cure is the state in which a seaman is returned as close as medically possible to the condition they were in prior to the injury. In this case, the fisherman might be entitled anti-seizure or other medical treatments even if they are long-term or permanent.

Maintenance

The concept of maintenance obligates shipowners to cover the basic living expenses of crew members while they are convalescing. This benefit was designed to repay seamen for their basic room and board, which under normal circumstances would be provided aboard the vessel on which they served. Maintenance is only provided until a seaman is able to return to duty or when they reach maximum medical cure – even if he remains disabled or is otherwise unable to return to work as a seaman.

Jones Act

United States citizens working as seamen aboard vessels operating in navigable waters may be eligible for special Jones Act rights provided by the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (also known as the Jones Act). The Jones Act offers numerous benefits beyond the basic maintenance and cure benefits offered under admiralty law.