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In a recent unpublished decision, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Galveston Division, considered whether an injured worker was in fact a "seaman"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.
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..jpg)
According to Steiner's 
Maritime safety procedures, if followed properly, can minimize the risk of accidents. Loads must be properly secured to prevent the risk of loads falling off of cranes and injuring workers. Maritime workers must also be trained about the risks they face while performing these activities. The importance of worker training and employee coordination cannot be underestimated. It is imperative that workers are trained to warn each other about the status of operations and any possible risk to those in the vicinity. Cranes must be fitted with alarm systems to warn workers that loads are being carried.
Coast guard personnel worked many hours to recover the crane as emergency crew members averted an environmental disaster by preventing oil from spilling into the water. A larger 100-ton crane was used to help with emergency rescue efforts.
When 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..jpg)
a 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.