Saturday, October 20, 2007

Admiralty terms are unique. And, while a doctor’s
writing may be difficult to understand, admiralty’s language
can be just as tricky to navigate. Here we are in the
21st century, and the U.S. Supreme Court recently re-visited
the definition of vessel in relation to a maritime dispute.
Just last month, a reader of the “Sea Trials” column
(a licensed captain) sent me an email asking what the
term seaman means in maritime law.
Believe it or not, the issue of seaman status is frequently
litigated. This is because, under maritime law,
the types of remedies available and elements of damages
recoverable may depend upon whether one is or is not a
“seaman.” Plaintiffs with bodily injuries like to be
cloaked with “seaman” status for expanded remedies
against the vessel owner/employer.
A seaman, according to a dictionary definition, is a
person skilled in seamanship or a person whose trade or
occupation is assisting in the handling, sailing, and navigating
of a ship during a voyage, especially one below
the rank of officer. However, it is not so simple in admiralty
parlance. Maritime law relating to liability for
death or injury to seamen has evolved from ancient
maritime codes. Coupled with U.S. legislation and
case law, unique tests of eligibility for seaman status
have developed.
Jones Act Seamen
In admiralty, the “Jones Act” (46 United States
Code § 30104) provides a cause of action in negligence
for any seaman injured or killed in the course of his employment.
The cause of action is against the seaman’s
employer and the remedies include maintenance (daily
food and lodging expense), cure (medical expenses), unearned
wages, and damages resulting from the unseaworthiness
of the vessel. Only a Jones Act seaman and/or
member of the vessel’s crew is entitled to sue for damages
under a warranty of seaworthiness - not a guest or a
passenger.
Although the term seaman is not defined in the
Jones Act statute, a definition has developed over decades
of disputes in the courts. Even the United States Supreme
Court has often weighed-in on the issue. Seaman status
is not dependant upon the activities of the employee at
the moment of an accident. Rather, the total circumstances
of an individual’s employment must be evaluated,
including the duration of the worker’s connection to a
vessel and the nature of the worker’s activities. Another
inquiry is whether or not the worker is a member of the
vessel’s crew.
Seaman Status Test
To assist lower courts in determining seaman status,
the U.S. Supreme Court as recent as 1995 (Chandris,
Inc. v. Latsis) developed a two part test:
1. The worker’s duty must contribute to the
functioning of the vessel or the accomplishment of its
mission; and
2. A seaman must have a connection to a vessel in
navigation (or to an identifiable group of vessels) that is
substantial in terms of both its duration and nature.
A good legal definition is contained in the Marine
Affairs Dictionary: Terms, Concepts, Laws, Court Cases
and International Conventions and Agreements, written
by Research Professor Niels West of the University of
Rhode Island’s Department of Marine Affairs:
“Able-bodied seaman (AB): In legal terms, a ‘seaman’
contributes to the mission of a vessel toward which
s/he has an employment relationship.”
If a worker becomes ill or injured while performing
work aboard a vessel but cannot satisfy the Supreme
Court’s two-pronged test, he or she will not be deemed a
Jones Act seaman and in the alternative, will only be entitled
to general maritime law “tort” or other remedies.
A tort remedy under the general maritime law is not as
liberal as seaman’s remedies. For example, for an injury
to a Jones Act seaman, a vessel owner/employer is liable
even without fault (called “strict liability”) for maintenance,
cure and unearned wages.
Examples
So, to bring the issue closer to home, is anyone
around here a Jones Act seaman? A passenger or guest
aboard your vessel is not, because there is neither an employment
relationship nor a substantial connection to
your vessel. Your guest may be a tanker captain but will be going to Argo Boat

No comments: