Hornbeck introduces new Jones Act-qualified MPSV

Posted on January 14, 2010 by Maritime Lawyer

Hornbeck Offshore Services, Inc. (NYSE:HOS) recently introduced a new multi-purpose support vessel (MPSV) to its fleet.

The new 370-ft HOS Centerline is Jones Act qualified and has an 8,000+ deadweight-ton capacity, which represents the largest and most diverse DP-2 classed offshore supply vessel in operation. The HOS Centerline is the only vessel in the world to have received United States Coast Guard certifications that allow it to conduct operation as a supply vessel, an industrial/construction vessel and as a petroleum and chemical tanker.
New Jones Act vessel HOS Centerline
HOS Centerline’s sister-vessel, HOS Strongline will join the fleet in early 2010. Both vessels will be based at the HOS shore base facility in Port Fourchon, Louisiana.
 
The new vessels have the capacity to transport more than 30,000 barrels of liquid drilling mud and fuel.  One of the largest MPSVs afloat with 8,400 kw of propulsion and DP-2 capability, the vessels are designed to be able to continue cargo transfer operations during sea and weather conditions that prevent smaller vessels from working. The ships’ cargo deck is 240 ft by 58 ft and is complemented by an additional 30-ft by 58-ft of covered deck space. HOS Centerline has accommodations for up to 78 persons, in addition the vessel’s regular crew.

Improving Maritime Safety for Jones Act Seaman

As an advocate for reducing maritime accidents and injuries, the Jones Act lawyers at Arnold & Itkin LLP strive to improve the lives of Jones Act seamen by driving employers to provide safer conditions for their maritime workers.

Tags: , ,

MOB tragedy underscores complexity of maritime law

Posted on October 20, 2009 by Maritime Lawyer

An incident occurred last Tuesday off the coast of Massachusetts that highlights the dangers of working in the maritime industry, and also reveals the complex legal issues that come into play when an accident occurs on the water.

Jaime Ortiz, 43, fell off a 39-foot lobster boat based in Gloucester, Mass., prompting an immediate search that included boats owned by local harbormasters, police and numerous local fishermen. Ortiz has not yet been found, and no official statement has been made about his chances of survival. Local officials said the search would continue.

One of the central issues surrounding the incident is the fact that Ortiz reportedly fell overboard “about three miles” off the coast. The three-mile distance from the U.S. shore is critical to the case, because it will help determine which law(s) apply if, in fact, Ortiz is lost at sea and his surviving family decides to file a claim seeking damages and/or future earnings.

 

 

Death on the High Seas Act vs. the Jones Act

If Ortiz is lost at sea and the incident occurred more than three miles from shore, his family may seek remedy under the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA). DOHSA was passed in 1920 to make it easier for surviving family members of seamen who died while working in international waters to receive compensation for the loss of future earnings by the deceased. If the accident occurred inside the three-mile boundary, Ortiz’s family may ask a Jones Act lawyer to seek remedy under the Jones Act. The Jones Act provides compensation to seamen in the case of an injury or the families of seamen who lose their lives while in service to a vessel, regardless of how far they were offshore when an accident occurs.


Qualifying for Jones Act protection

There are certain qualifiers that affect the Ortiz case, and others like it, in addition to merely the distance between the shoreline and the location of any such incident. DOHSA applies to anyone (e.g. boat owners and operators, crew, passengers, temporary employees, etc.) lost at sea more than three miles offshore. To qualify as a Jones Act seaman, the injured party only has to be a U.S. citizen and a regular crew member of a Jones Act vessel. 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 in 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.

If Ortiz was a regular member of the crew, his family and/or legal representation could demonstrate that to the court through payroll statements, employment records, tax forms, etc. If Ortiz’s body is recovered or if he is presumed dead, and he is proven to have been a regular member of the crew and that he died as a result of negligence by the boat’s owner or crew, his family may be able to expect compensation through the Jones Act.

However, if Ortiz is not a U.S. citizen, or can’t prove that he is a regular member of the crew, or if he is a temporary employee, his case would fail to qualify under the Jones Act. The point is significant because Jones Act claims sometimes offer significant awards to the families of victims, who can sue for punitive damages, pain and suffering, future earnings of the deceased, etc. If Ortiz fails to meet the requirements of a Jones Act seaman and if the incident occurred inside the three-mile barrier from the shore, the victim’s family could come up empty in its attempts to seek compensation under maritime law. But if he meets all of the criteria and the accident is shown to have occurred more than three miles from shore, his surviving family members can file claims under both the Jones Act and DOHSA.


Proof of negligence

To successfully prosecute either a DOHSA or Jones Act case, the victim or his surviving family must prove negligence, either on the part of the boat’s owner or any other member of the crew. If negligence can be proven, Ortiz’s family could qualify for protection under the Jones Act and DOHSA if the incident occurred more than three miles offshore. Negligence could be found in a number of areas, including inadequate training of crew, failure to provide proper safety equipment, allowing a crew member to perform duties that exceed previous training, etc.

Also factoring into the equation is the fact that since both laws fall under maritime law, a victim’s family can file claims immediately, rather than having to wait a up to seven years for a civil court to declare the victim legally dead (also known as “death in absentia”).

A proven maritime lawyer will know the specifics of DOHSA, the Jones Act and their application to the Ortiz case, and has the knowledge to discern whether negligence was involved. An accomplished maritime attorney often will suggest filing immediately in order to allow as much time as possible for the case to be brought to trial before any relevant statute of limitations expires.

 

 
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Fishing Boat Catches Fire off Galveston Texas Coast, No Injuries Reported

Posted on December 15, 2008 by Maritime Lawyer

A fishing boat carrying three crew members had to be rescued about 10 miles off the coast of Galveston, Texas after a fire broke out on board, the Houston Chronicle reports.   Fortunately, no maritime injuries were reported as a result of the accident.

The Coast Guard was alerted to the accident when the Houston-Galveston Center received an emergency aid call from another boat about a fire that had broken out aboard the shrimp boat, Master Ryan. A rescue helicopter, a motor life boat and a Coast Guard Cutter were dispatched to the scene of the fire. The helicopter delivered a life raft to the three crew members who then climbed aboard the raft. They were then picked up by another vessel and taken ashore. All crew members were reported to be in good physical condition. The blaze was put out a few hours later. There is no information yet on the cause of the fire.

It's extremely fortunate that the three crew members were able to get the emergency assistance they needed before the accident involved injuries aboard the boat. Any fire aboard a vessel is a serious and dangerous situation. There could have been severe burn injuries as a result of the fire breaking out. For this reason, strict safety precautions must be observed aboard all maritime vessels to mitigate the risk of fire, and all shipboard personnel must be properly trained in fire safety policies and procedures.  Only time and a thorough investigation will tell whether a lack of safety policies, procedures, or training may have contributed to the fire aboard the Master Ryan. 

Fishing Boats and Maritime Law

A fishing boat may be classified as a Jones Act vessel, and as such, workers who are injured in an accident aboard the vessel may qualify for compensation under the Jones Act. The Jones Act defines a seaman as an employee who is working on a vessel in navigable waters, and who is involved in fulfilling the function of the vessel. He must also have a strong enough connection to the boat, meaning that his work must be tangible, and substantial long term work. Under the Jones Act, in addition to medical treatment for his injuries, he may be entitled to maintenance benefits to cover his daily living expenses, including food, house rent and utilities. Unfortunately, fishing boat crew may be confused or unaware of their seaman status under the Jones Act, and may be unaware of the special rights they have under the Act.

Maritime Injury Lawsuits

In the event that an employer provides insufficient benefits to a Jones Act seaman, then the seaman has the right to hire a maritime injury lawyer to bring a claim against the employer. In such cases, the employee may also claim lawyer's fees as part of his claim against his employer.

If you are a seaman and have been injured in an explosion, fire or any other maritime accident, you will need the experience of a Jones Act maritime lawyer to build your case to claim the full compensation you deserve. Contact the maritime lawyers at Arnold & Itkin LLP for a free evaluation of your case.

 

 

 

 
Tags: , , , , , , ,