Awards and Honors
Martindale Hubbell - AV rated lawyer - Best Rating Possible
Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum
AVVO Top Rated Personal Injury Attorney, 10 of 10
ATLA Top 100
Lawyers.com - Rated 5.0 out of 5.0 - Top Rating Possible
National Trial Lawyers - Top 100 Trial Lawyers
Million Dollar Advocates Forum
American Society of Legal Advocates - Top 100 - 2014
Marquis' Who's Who in the World, Who's Who in America and Who's Who in American Law
AVVO Clients' Choice Personal Injury Lawyer
American Society of Legal Advocates - Top 100 - 2013
Jones Act - Table of Contents
The Jones Act - Cases, Decisions and Opinions
III. EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP - C. Injury as Sustained in Course of Employment
"Service of the ship" formula, used in maintenance and cure cases, is equivalent of provision under 46 USCS Appx section 688 for personal injury coverage for seaman injured in "course of employment," and decisions in maintenance and cure cases dealing with whether injury occurred in "the service of the ship" are relevant guides to meaning of term "course of employment" as used in 46 USCS Appx section 688; seaman injured as consequence of employer's negligence is injured "in the course of his employment" so as to be entitled to recover in action under 46 USCS Appx section 688 where, at time of injury, he was doing work of his employer pursuant to his employer's orders; in determining whether seaman was injured in course of his employment, fact that injury did not occur on vessel is not controlling. Braen v Pfeifer Oil Transp. Co. (1959) 361 US 129, 4 L Ed 2d 191, 80 S Ct 247.
Employment of seaman includes performance not only of physical tasks required of him, but also of such ordinary tasks for his comfort and convenience as are incident to and necessarily connected with employment. States S.S. Co. v Berglann (1930, CA9 Or) 41 F2d 456, cert den 282 US 868, 75 L Ed 767, 51 S Ct 75.
When seaman, by his own volition, creates extraneous circumstance, he brings about intervening cause that directly affects his relation to his employers and to ship; he is responsible for such intervening cause if it consists of his own willful misconduct, is something which is done in pursuance of some private avocation or business, or grows out of relations unconnected with service, or is not logical incident of duty. Jackson v Pittsburgh S.S. Co. (1942, CA6 Ohio) 131 F2d 668.
Where injury results from duties performed in service of ship, fact that injured seaman is not actually performing duty for ship at time when injury occurs is immaterial. Kyriakos v Goulandris (1945, CA2 NY) 151 F2d 132.
To recover under 46 USCS Appx section 688, plaintiff must prove himself employee of defendant and that his injury arose in course of that employment. Bergan v International Freighting Corp. (1958, CA2 NY) 254 F2d 231.
In cases under 46 USCS Appx section 688, jury is to decide factual question of employment when there is conflicting evidence. Fitzgerald v A. L. Burbank & Co. (1971, CA2 NY) 451 F2d 670, 14 ALR Fed 525.
In action under 46 USCS Appx section 688 for injuries suffered by seaman which resulted in his death, it was jury question whether decedent was acting in course of employment as seaman at time of injury. Southard v Independent Towing Co. (1971, CA3 Pa) 453 F2d 1115.
Remedies afforded by 46 USCS Appx section 688 are designed to protect those who perform services upon ships and are exposed to unique hazards of work upon sea and therefore benefits should be available to anyone so engaged, even if not in employ of ship itself; seaman status will be accorded to those performing tasks not necessary to actual navigation of ship but who are engaged in employment on board ship. Mahramas v American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc. (1973, CA2 NY) 475 F2d 165.
46 USCS Appx section 688 contemplates action by seaman against his employer only and is concerned with relative rights and obligations of seamen and their employers arising out of personal injuries sustained by former in course of their employment; this is matter which falls within recognized sphere of maritime law, and in respect of which maritime rules have differed materially from those of common law applicable to injuries sustained by employees in nonmaritime service. Eggleston v Republic Steel Corp. (1942, DC NY) 47 F Supp 658.
"In the course of employment" under 46 USCS Appx section 688 is to be given its plain meaning, and is not to be restricted to injuries occurring in any particular place. Vincent v Harvey Well Service (1970, ED La) 309 F Supp 964, revd on other grounds (CA5 La) 441 F2d 146.
Seaman, because of inability to leave ship during its voyage, is considered to be within scope of his employment for purposes of 46 USCS Appx section 688, if injured while engaged in any activity incidental to and necessarily connected with his duties. Craighead v Equitable Life Assur. Soc. (1975, La App 1st Cir) 324 So 2d 554, application den (La) 329 So 2d 452.
239. On high seas
Nothing in legislative history of 46 USCS Appx section 688 indicates that its words "in the course of his employment" do not mean what they say or that they were intended to be restricted to injuries occurring on navigable waters. O'Donnell v Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. (1943) 318 US 36, 87 L Ed 596, 63 S Ct 488, 1943 AMC 149.
Under 46 USCS Appx section 688, right to recovery follows from seaman's employment status and is not limited to injury or death occurring on high seas. Moragne v States Marine Lines, Inc. (1970) 398 US 375, 26 L Ed 2d 339, 90 S Ct 1772, on remand (CA5 Fla) 446 F2d 906.
Seaman can recover under 46 USCS Appx section 688 for injuries suffered in course of ship's services, whether on land or sea. Re Dearborn Marine Service, Inc. (1974, CA5 Tex) 499 F2d 263, 30 ALR Fed 499, reh den (CA5 Tex) 512 F2d 1061 and cert dismd 423 US 886, 46 L Ed 2d 118, 96 S Ct 163.
240. On board vessel
Fact that injury did not occur on vessel is not controlling as to whether injured person has right of recovery under 46 USCS Appx section 688. Braen v Pfeifer Oil Transp. Co. (1959) 361 US 129, 4 L Ed 2d 191, 80 S Ct 247.
241. On dock, wharf, or pier
Seaman injured on dock while departing from ship on shore leave was in service of vessel. Aguilar v Standard Oil Co. (1943) 318 US 724, 87 L Ed 1107, 63 S Ct 930; Catrakis v Nautilus Petroleum Carriers Corp. (1977, SD NY) 427 F Supp 255.
No recovery could be had under 46 USCS Appx section 688 to seaman for injuries sustained on wharf alongside of which vessel was moored, where seaman was at place of injury for purposes of his own. Todahl v Sudden & Christenson (1925, CA9 Cal) 5 F2d 462.
Employee of fishing boat falling from dock to sloping surface below floor of dock, such surface being provided for different stages of tide, was not entitled to sue in admiralty, as sloping surface or "slip" was part of "land structure." Lindh v Booth Fisheries Co. (1932, DC Wash) 2 F Supp 19.
Under 46 USCS Appx section 688, shipowner assumes responsibility for acts of negligence toward seamen on shore leave only when acts are committed by those with whom owner of ship has contracted to provide some product or service that enables seaman to get ashore; shipowner may only be held responsible for negligence of pier owner if there is contractual relationship between them. Hamilton v Marine Carriers Corp. (1971, ED Pa) 332 F Supp 223.
46 USCS Appx section 688 is inapplicable to injury sustained by seaman while on dock assisting in loading of vessel. Rudo v A. H. Bull S. S. Co. (1935) 168 Md 281, 177 A 538, cert den 295 US 759, 79 L Ed 1701, 55 S Ct 916.
Seaman injured on shore while in service of his vessel is entitled to recover for his injuries in suit brought against his employer under 46 USCS Appx section 688. O'Donnell v Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. (1943) 318 US 36, 87 L Ed 596, 63 S Ct 488, 1943 AMC 149.
Fact that employee's injury occurred on land is not material, since admiralty jurisdiction and coverage of 46 USCS Appx section 688 depends only on finding that injured was employee of vessel engaged in course of his employment at time of injury. Senko v La Crosse Dredging Corp. (1957) 352 US 370, 1 L Ed 2d 404, 77 S Ct 415, reh den 353 US 931, 1 L Ed 2d 724, 77 S Ct 716.
Seaman injured as consequence of employer's negligence is injured "in the course of his employment" so as to be entitled to recover in action under 46 USCS Appx section 688 where, at time of injury, he was doing work of his employer pursuant to his employer's orders; in determining whether seaman was injured in course of his employment, fact that injury did not occur on vessel is not controlling. Braen v Pfeifer Oil Transp. Co. (1959) 361 US 129, 4 L Ed 2d 191, 80 S Ct 247.
Protection of 46 USCS Appx section 688 is extended to seamen who are injured through negligence of their employers while acting in course of their employment even though injuries occur on land. Marceau v Great Lakes Transit Corp. (1945, CA2 NY) 146 F2d 416, 1945 AMC 223, cert den 324 US 872, 89 L Ed 1426, 65 S Ct 1018.
In action brought under 46 USCS Appx section 688, seaman may recover for injuries received while off ship and engaged in temporary work for employer unrelated to service of ship. Higginbotham v Mobil Oil Corp. (1977, CA5 La) 545 F2d 422 (disagreed with on other grounds Smith v M/V Captain Fred (CA5 La) 546 F2d 119) as stated in Longmire v Sea Drilling Corp. (CA5 La) 610 F2d 1342, reh den (CA5 La) 615 F2d 919 and (disagreed with on other grounds Steckler v United States (CA10 Colo) 549 F2d 1372, 38 ALR Fed 188 (disagreed with Smith v United States (CA3 Pa) 587 F2d 1013)) and revd on other grounds 436 US 618, 56 L Ed 2d 581, 98 S Ct 2010, on remand (CA5 La) 578 F2d 565 and reh den 439 US 884, 58 L Ed 2d 200, 99 S Ct 232 and (ovrld on other grounds Culver v Slater Boat Co. (CA5 La) 688 F2d 280, op withdrawn, in part (CA5 La) 722 F2d 114, cert den 467 US 1252, 82 L Ed 2d 842, 104 S Ct 3537 and cert den (US) 83 L Ed 2d 37, 105 S Ct 90) and (disapproved on other grounds Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v Pfeifer, 462 US 523, 76 L Ed 2d 768, 103 S Ct 2541, on remand (CA3) 711 F2d 570).
Once it is established that worker is seaman, Jones Act (46 USCS Appx section 688) permits him to recover from his employer even for injuries received while he is on shore; Jones Act does not require that seaman's tasks at time he was injured be related to service of ship; seaman does not lose his status when he is temporarily assigned by his employer to duties off vessel; however, this does not mean that maritime worker assigned to work ashore for long period of time would continue indefinitely to be seaman merely because it is contemplated that he will someday return to vessel, nor that seaman's status continues if worker commences work for another employer. Guidry v South Louisiana Contractors, Inc. (1980, CA5 La) 614 F2d 447 reh den (CA5 La) 616 F2d 568.
Accident to member of vessel's crew while on errand on land was not in course of navigation or interstate commerce and federal acts relative to such employments were not applicable. Powers v Murray (1934) 266 Mich 688, 254 NW 559.
243. --Particular circumstancesProcuring of net by fisherman for vessel on which he was employed for her forthcoming fishing venture was nonetheless in maritime employment, though service for venture was on shore. The Betsy Ross (1944, CA9 Cal) 145 F2d 688, 1944 AMC 1468.
Where plaintiff, ship's purser, was accompanying ship's captain on shore business and fell through an open door while leaving coffee shop it was found that although plaintiff was acting within scope of his employment, captain, nevertheless, was not acting in scope of his employment when he failed to warn plaintiff of opening in floor and in light of such latter fact, it was unnecessary to reach question whether 46 USCS Appx section 688 may be applied to accidents occurring considerable distances from ship in places on shore which are in no respect under control of ship owner. Trost v American Hawaiian S.S. Co. (1963, CA2 NY) 324 F2d 225, cert den 376 US 963, 11 L Ed 2d 981, 84 S Ct 1125.
Employer was not liable under 46 USCS Appx section 688 for death of employee, where negligent employee was beyond scope of his employment relationship in leaving barge without authorization. Moore v Associated Pipeline Contractors (1972, CA5 La) 468 F2d 815.
Seaman who admitted that he was not sent ashore by anyone in authority on his ship but went ashore with permission to get few things for himself could not maintain action under 46 USCS Appx section 688 for injuries he received while ashore. Wahlgren v Standard Oil Co. (1941, DC NY) 42 F Supp 992, 1941 AMC 1788.
46 USCS Appx section 688 claimant's operation of winch, although on shore, was clearly in course of his employment as member of crew of ferry. Dardar v Louisiana (1971, ED La) 322 F Supp 1115, affd (CA5 La) 447 F2d 952, cert den 405 US 918, 30 L Ed 2d 788, 92 S Ct 943, reh den 405 US 1048, 31 L Ed 2d 591, 92 S Ct 1308.
Diver who is regularly employed as seaman and performs majority of his work from vessel is covered by 46 USCS Appx section 688 even though injured while on land assisting in building diving training tank for underwater use. Taylor v Packer Diving & Salvage Co. (1972, ED La) 342 F Supp 365, affd (CA5 La) 457 F2d 512, reh den (CA5 La) 471 F2d 650.
244. While off-duty on vessel
For purposes of 46 USCS Appx section 688 seaman, because of his inability to leave ship, is considered to be in course of his duties if engaged in any matter incidental to his required duties; off-duty seaman, injured while pointing out sea lions to other persons on board vessel was injured while in course of his employment. Sundberg v Washington Fish & Oyster Co. (1943, CA9 Wash) 138 F2d 801, 1943 AMC 1337.
245. While on shore leave
Injury received by seaman during period of shore leave was injury occurring in service of ship. Warren v United States (1951) 340 US 523, 95 L Ed 503, 71 S Ct 432.
Seaman injured while enjoying shore leave in foreign port was "in the course of his employment" and thus entitled to benefits provided by 46 USCS Appx section 688. Central Gulf S.S. Corp. v Sambula (1968, CA5 Tex) 405 F2d 291, 16 ALR Fed 70.
When under labor contract, no employee had any right to shore leave until job was completed, employee who left barge, left scope of employment relationship and employer barge company was no longer liable under 46 USCS Appx section 688 for injuries which occurred. Moore v Associated Pipeline Contractors (1972, CA5 La) 468 F2d 815.
Seaman was injured in service of his ship, although he was ashore on leave when he sustained his injury. Dasher v United States (1945, DC NY) 59 F Supp 742, 1945 AMC 100.
Seaman who brought suit under 46 USCS Appx section 688 against operators of merchant vessel for personal injuries which he sustained as result of fist fight in barroom with chief engineer of his vessel while on shore leave was on shipowner's business and in course of his employment. Nowery v Smith (1946, DC Pa) 69 F Supp 755, 1946 AMC 1702, affd (CA3 Pa) 161 F2d 732, 1947 AMC 756.
Shipowner is not under duty to warn crew members who are going ashore for their own pleasure of existence of possible dangerous conditions in shore area beyond ship's control. D'Costa v United States Lines Co. (1964, SD NY) 227 F Supp 180, 1965 AMC 2199.
Seaman's claim that choice of site for and supervision of crew's liberty at remote anchorage were negligent and created liability for injuries he suffered on liberty under 46 USCS section 688 is dismissed, where captain permitted off-duty crewmen to investigate shipwreck in groups and seaman lowering himself from shipwreck by use of rope he found on 20-year-old shipwreck fell 30-40 feet, fracturing 2 vertebrae and left heel, because even though shore leave is "elemental necessity in sailing of ships," seaman was not "in service of ship" or "in course of his employment" but rather "in pursuit of his own affairs" when injury occurred. Howard v M/V Bristol Monarch (1987, WD Wash) 652 F Supp 677.
Jones Act (46 USCS Appx section 688) claim of engineer, stabbed while trying to break up fight between 2 other crew members in bar while on authorized shore leave, is denied, even though engineer showed that previous incidents of violent behavior by stabber had been reported to superior officers, because at time of stabbing engineer was pursuing his own private interests, and he was not acting "in course of his employment." Colon v Apex Marine Corp. (1993, DC RI) 832 F Supp 508, summary op at (DC RI) 14 R.I.L.W. 495.
246. Boarding or leaving vessel
Seaman injured on dock while departing from ship on shore leave was in service of vessel. Aguilar v Standard Oil Co. (1943) 318 US 724, 87 L Ed 1107, 63 S Ct 930.
Seaman continues in course of employment when departing from his place of work and injury while using ladder to leave ship is injury in course of employment for purposes of 46 USCS Appx section 688. Wong Bar v Suburban Petroleum Transport, Inc. (1941, CA2 NY) 119 F2d 745.
Employee is deemed to be in course of his employment while going to or from his place of work by only practicable route of immediate ingress and egress. Marceau v Great Lakes Transit Corp. (1945, CA2 NY) 146 F2d 416, cert den 324 US 872, 89 L Ed 1426, 65 S Ct 1018; Walton v Continental S.S. Co. (1946, DC Md) 66 F Supp 836; Monteiro v Paco Tankers, Inc. (1950, DC Pa) 93 F Supp 93; McDonough v Buckeye S.S. Co. (1951, DC Ohio) 103 F Supp 473, affd (CA6 Ohio) 200 F2d 558, cert den 345 US 926, 97 L Ed 1357, 73 S Ct 785, Monteiro v Paco Tankers, Inc. (1950, DC Pa) 93 F Supp 93.
Seaman who was attempting to move from ship to shore at time of injury was acting within scope of employment. Hudson Waterways Corp. v Coastal Marine Service, Inc. (1977, ED Tex) 436 F Supp 597.
247. --Particular circumstancesPlaintiff injured while leaving ship on which he was employed, for purpose of answering long distance call from his wife, was not in service of ship at time of accident, injury being result of plaintiff's free act and conscious motion of his will, apart from any obligation of his employment. The President Coolidge (1938, DC Wash) 23 F Supp 575.
Fact that rigger ordered by his employer to go board ship to assist in installation of some tanks was injured while going from dock to ship did not support contention that his injury was nonmaritime, since "direction of travel" rule has been abandoned. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v United States (1944, DC NY) 56 F Supp 452, 1944 AMC 633.
Seaman was within scope of his employment when he fell from gangway on returning to ship to perform duties after shore leave. Weissbach v Matson Navigation Co. (1972, ND Cal) 345 F Supp 1176.
Seaman who drowned while attempting to return to his sleeping quarters was acting within scope of his employment for purposes of 46 USCS Appx section 688; where only means of access to quarters was across inadequately lighted dock, to which defendant's vessel was moored, and vessel was unlighted, jury could reasonably find that defendant owner was negligent. Hocut v Insurance Co. of North America (1971, La App 3d Cir) 254 So 2d 108, cert den 260 La 411, 256 So 2d 292.
248. Commuting to and from vessel
For purposes of 46 USCS Appx section 688, tugboat employee who drowned while returning from another boat with loaf of bread for crew's lunch was killed in scope of employment. Thompson v Eargle (1950, CA4 SC) 182 F2d 717.
Shipowner is under no duty to provide safe means of transportation between ship and any place of amusement crew members desire to visit while on shore leave in vessel's home port. Thurnau v Alcoa S.S. Co. (1956, CA2 NY) 229 F2d 73, 1956 AMC 323, cert den 351 US 925, 100 L Ed 1455, 76 S Ct 783.
For purposes of 46 USCS Appx section 688, seaman, injured by railroad engine while returning to ship at 2:00 a. m. from shore leave, was injured in scope of employment. Wheeler v West India S.S. Co. (1951, DC NY) 103 F Supp 631, 1952 AMC 148, affd (CA2 NY) 205 F2d 354, 1953 AMC 1240, cert den 346 US 889, 98 L Ed 393, 74 S Ct 141.
Plaintiff, while returning to vessel from shore leave, was in course of his employment within meaning of 46 USCS Appx section 688. Dangovich v Isthmian Lines, Inc. (1963, SD NY) 218 F Supp 235, affd (CA2 NY) 327 F2d 355, 1964 AMC 629.
Shipowner is under no duty to provide safe means of transportation between ship and place of seaman's amusement; shipowner is under no duty to warn seamen of dangerous conditions over which they have no control that exist beyond ship's gangway. Broussard v Marine Transport Lines, Inc. (1974, ED Tex) 369 F Supp 103.
When transportation to and from work aboard vessel is supplied by employer in employer's interest, employee is engaged in course of his employment during period of transportation; thus, fact that seaman's injury occurred prior to his actual arrival aboard vessel did not mean that he had not yet become seaman for purposes of 46 USCS Appx section 688. Porche v Gulf Mississippi Marine Corp. (1975, ED La) 390 F Supp 624.
Jones Act applies to death or injury of seamen occurring while being transported by their employer to or from vessel. Sherrill v Brinkerhoff Maritime Drilling (1985, ND Cal) 615 F Supp 1021.
249. --Particular circumstancesFor purposes of 46 USCS Appx section 688, American seaman who in United States signed articles for voyage on Panamanian vessel providing that he would be signed off at foreign port and that owner would arrange at its cost for his transportation back to United States, during which time he was to be paid full wages, was not killed in course of his employment, where, while returning, he met his death in crash of airplane owned and operated by independent contractor. McCall v Overseas Tankship Corp. (1955, CA2 NY) 222 F2d 441, 1955 AMC 1175.
Assuming crew members were in course of employment while departing from yacht to obtain meals and return thereto in normal manner, they were not in such course when they took liberty of spending 3 hours consuming intoxicants, and employment status was not restored when they attempted to return to yacht. Petition of Atlass (1965, CA7 Ill) 350 F2d 592, cert den 382 US 988, 15 L Ed 2d 476, 86 S Ct 551, reh den 383 US 923, 15 L Ed 2d 679, 86 S Ct 884 and reh den 384 US 914, 16 L Ed 2d 368, 86 S Ct 1336 and cert den 382 US 988, 15 L Ed 2d 476, 86 S Ct 556, reh den 383 US 923, 15 L Ed 2d 679, 86 S Ct 884 and reh den 384 US 914, 16 L Ed 2d 368, 86 S Ct 1336.
Where seaman employed aboard dredge and was required to live at home and commute to job daily, was killed in accident while commuting; commuting was part of job and in circumstances hazards of journey could fairly be regarded as hazards of service; his widow was entitled to maintenance and cure and 46 USCS Appx section 688 damages. Williamson v Western Pacific Dredging Corp. (1971, CA9 Or) 441 F2d 65, cert den 404 US 851, 30 L Ed 2d 91, 92 S Ct 90.
Where defendant operated inland water submersible drilling barge on which there were no sleeping facilities and supplied automobile and driver to transport employees to and from pierhead to convenient metropolitan assembly point 50 miles away, plaintiff, derrick hand, who was injured in automobile accident while being so transported was in course of his employment and could bring action under 46 USCS Appx section 688. Vicent v Harvey Well Service (1971, CA5 La) 441 F2d 146.
Member of drilling crew could not recover under 46 USCS Appx section 688 for injury suffered while going from home to work where his pay began and ended at dock, he was not paid for days off duty spent at home and was responsible for his own transportation to and from home, physically and financially, and while off duty he was free to do as he pleased; he was neither on shore leave nor answerable to call of duty and was not within course of his employment at time of his death. Daughdrill v Diamond M. Drilling Co. (1971, CA5 La) 447 F2d 781, cert den 405 US 997, 31 L Ed 2d 466, 92 S Ct 1261.
Worker on drilling barge, located 100 miles at sea, was seaman in course of his employment at time of his death so as to render employer liable under 46 USCS Appx section 688, where worker died when helicopter, which was transporting him to drilling barge, crashed at sea. Higginbotham v Mobil Oil Corp. (1977, CA5 La) 545 F2d 422 (disagreed with on other grounds Smith v M/V Captain Fred (CA5 La) 546 F2d 119) as stated in Longmire v Sea Drilling Corp. (CA5 La) 610 F2d 1342, reh den (CA5 La) 615 F2d 919 and (disagreed with on other grounds Steckler v United States (CA10 Colo) 549 F2d 1372, 38 ALR Fed 188 (disagreed with Smith v United States (CA3 Pa) 587 F2d 1013)) and revd on other grounds 436 US 618, 56 L Ed 2d 581, 98 S Ct 2010, on remand (CA5 La) 578 F2d 565 and reh den 439 US 884, 58 L Ed 2d 200, 99 S Ct 232 and (ovrld on other grounds Culver v Slater Boat Co. (CA5 La) 688 F2d 280, op withdrawn, in part on other grounds (CA5 La) 722 F2d 114, cert den 467 US 1252, 82 L Ed 2d 842, 104 S Ct 3537 and cert den (US) 83 L Ed 2d 37, 105 S Ct 90) and (disapproved on other grounds Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v Pfeifer, 462 US 523, 76 L Ed 2d 768, 103 S Ct 2541, on remand (CA3) 711 F2d 570).
Aircraft that crashed while transporting decedent to work on drilling barge did not and could not land on vessel, had no direct relation to vessel, and was therefore not "appurtenance" to vessel. Craig v Atlantic Richfield Co. (1994, CA9 Cal) 19 F3d 472, 94 CDOS 2019, 94 Daily Journal DAR 3755, 1994 AMC 1354, 28 FR Serv 3d 1044.
Since maritime law imposes on shipowner no obligation to furnish transportation to and from shore to seamen granted shore leave, libel failed to state cause of action for recovery of damages for death of seaman while returning to his ship on itinerant launch plying the harbor. Lemon v United States (1946, DC Md) 68 F Supp 793.
Seaman who was off duty from ship, walked to beach to go swimming, and was injured when, while returning to vessel in transportation furnished by shipowner, he was thrown from pickup truck, was in "course of employment" on occasion in question; "course of employment" as used in 46 USCS Appx section 688, is equivalent of "service of the ship" in maintenance and cure cases. Broussard v Marine Transport Lines, Inc. (1974, ED Tex) 369 F Supp 103.
Third assistant marine engineer who reported to vessel's agent in New York, was flown to Cairo and, while being transported from Cairo to vessel's berth in Port Said was injured in automobile accident, was Jones Act employee notwithstanding that captain of vessel might have rejected him pursuant to terms of collective bargaining agreement. Mounteer v Marine Transport Lines, Inc. (1979, SD NY) 463 F Supp 715.
Professional diver, killed on Louisiana highway while en route to his job site, was not seaman within meaning of 46 USCS Appx section 688. Samayoa v Michel Lecler, Inc. (1975, La App 4th Cir) 310 So 2d 162, cert den (La) 313 So 2d 828 and cert den (La) 313 So 2d 828.
Prospective employee sent by union as part of contract to fulfill crew requirement for ship was not within scope of employment when at time he sustained injury he had not yet reported to any of ship's officers, but was injured while going aft with intention of reporting for duty. Miller v Browning S.S. Co. (1947, CA2 NY) 165 F2d 209, cert den 334 US 834, 92 L Ed 1761, 68 S Ct 1341.
Employer-employee relationship must exist at time of negligence in order for recovery under 46 USCS Appx section 688; when negligence alleged occurred during pre-employment physical examination, shipowner as seaman's subsequent employer was not liable for injuries occurring, examination was not in course of seaman's employment. Pennington v Pacific Coast Transport Co. (1969, CA5 La) 419 F2d 122.
One employed as mate on barge undergoing repairs in employer's repair yard, who, after being ordered to do carpentry work on raft used in chipping, painting, and welding on employer's vessel, but not used in repairs being done on vessel on which he normally served, stood on catwalk on lighter alongside which raft lay and attempted to move raft into position for boarding and was injured when catwalk gave way, may recover for injuries in action under 46 USCS Appx section 688, such injury having occurred while mate was acting in course of his employment within meaning of that term as used in section 688. Braen v Pfeifer Oil Transp. Co. (1959) 361 US 129, 4 L Ed 2d 191, 80 S Ct 247.
In cases arising under 46 USCS Appx section 688, it is not within scope of seaman's employment to aid intoxicated member of same crew in returning to their ship. McClure v United States Lines Co. (1966, CA4 Va) 368 F2d 197.
Seamen voluntarily engaging in fight are not engaged in work as seamen and are not entitled to recover under 46 USCS Appx section 688. The Quaker City (1933, DC Ga) 1933 AMC 1291.
Seaman who fell from ladder aboard ship, was acting in course of employment within meaning of 46 USCS Appx section 688, when he decided to go into hold in which accident occurred, for purpose of investigating whether steam was coming from hold and what had caused it to escape, since he was only deck officer on duty. Hilderbrand v United States (1954, DC NY) 134 F Supp 514, affd (CA2) 226 F2d 215.
Where seaman aboard American vessel discharging cargo in Republic of Vietnam was accused of throwing Vietnamese watchman overboard, captain of vessel permitted Vietnamese officials to put seaman in waterfront jail for several days, and conditions of seaman's imprisonment were substandard and subhuman, seaman's theory of recovery against owner of vessel under 46 USCS Appx section 688 was not well founded as his damages did not fall within purview of section 688 in that he did not sustain personal injuries in course of his employment. Russell v States S.S. Co. (1973, DC Or) 376 F Supp 233.
Jones Act - TABLE OF CONTENTS
Accident Lawyer Hawaii
Law Office of
William H. Lawson
1188 Bishop St. Suite 2902
Honolulu, HI 96813
New client hotline:
Pearl City, Aiea and Waipahu:
Main business phone:
Directions to Honolulu office
HI accident news
Court cases re:
Hawaii accident law
Products Liability - Cases & Comment
Jones Act- maritime law and seaman cases
The Constitution Of The State Of Hawaii
Recent Personal Injury and Car Accident News
In the case of Tracey v. Solesky, 427 Md. 627, 50 A.3d 1075 (Md., 2012), the Court of Appeals of Maryland held that pit bull owners and harborers have strict liability for attacks on humans by their dogs. Massachusettes had previously established a similar policy. Cute pit bulls? Not hardly. Historically the dogs were bred to be weapons. They regularly maim and kill. Some courts are finally holding that owners and harborers of this particular breed are required to compensate their victims when their pit bulls wrongfully injure or kill - without the traditional "one free bite".