Jones Act Attorney

Who is considered a Seaman when applying the Jones Act?

When people think of a "seaman", they think o the ocean and those working on sea vessels. However, it has been shown that the same risks are present for those working on vessels on rivers and other non-ocean bodies of water. Why is this important? Seamen enjoy the protection of specific laws that apply exclusively to them, such as the Jones Act, the doctrine of seaworthiness and maintenance and cure. In practical terms, this usually means more money is awarded to sick or injured workers if they are classified as "seamen" rather than harbor workers, longshoremen or passengers.

In an interesting case in 2000, the seaman status issue was raised. ( "Re: In the Matter of the Complaint of Endeavor Marine, Inc., United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit" 2000 U.S. App. December 11, 2000.) Kevin Baye sustained disabling back and knee injuries when he was struck by a mooring line while working aboard the Frank L. Baye was an employee of Crane Operators, Inc., a company that provided personnel on an as-needed basis to businesses that own or operate cranes and other heavy lift equipment.

The accident occurred on April 4, 1996, in the Mississippi River while the tugboat Tako Endeavor was pushing the Frank L. next to a cargo vessel that the Frank L. was assigned to unload. Baye was standing near the head of the Frank L. waiting for the barge to be positioned so he could pass a mooring line to the deck hands aboard the cargo vessel. While being pushed into position by the Tako Endeavor, the stern mooring cable of a nearby derrick barge snagged on the Frank L.'s hull. The line snapped and popped up onto the deck of the Frank L., striking Baye in the leg and back and causing serious injury.

Baye brought suit under the Jones Act, but the trial court determined he was not a seaman because the vessel he was working on traveled on the river rather than the sea. This would have limited Baye's recovery of funds to Longshoreman and Harbor Workers Act benefits, but Baye insisted he was a seaman.

Courts use a two-part test to determine if a worker is a seaman. First, an employee's duties must contribute to the function of the vessel or to the accomplishment of its mission; second, a seaman must have a connection to a vessel in navigation, or to an identifiable group of such vessels, that is substantial in terms of both its duration and nature. Baye's employment clearly satisfied the first part of the test, but the second part was not clear.

At first the court concluded that Baye's connection to the Frank L. was not substantial in terms of its nature because his duties did not carry him to sea. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court decision, basing its decision on whether or not Baye was regularly exposed to the perils of the sea, as opposed to whether or not his duties carried him to sea. Even though the vessel was not going to sea per se, Baye as a worker on the vessel was exposed to the hazards that are common to workers on board vessels, such as mooring lines that could snap and cause injury.

In recent years the issue of seaman status has appeared often. Some decisions are based on the percentage of time the employee spends on the vessel. Generally, these cases indicate that more than 30% of the time spent on the vessel doing seaman's work qualifies the person as a seaman. If you are a worker who spends work time both on land and a vehicle, then it's crucial to keep good records tracking the amount of time spent on land versus sea. After an accident it can be very difficult to reconstruct this information, which could translate into the loss of substantial amounts of money and other benefits.

If you have been injured aboard a vessel and think it may fall under the Jones Act, contact a Jones Act attorney at Williams Kherkher so we can help you sort out your legal rights and options.