Jones Act Cases from Accident Lawyer Hawaii

Jones Act Cases - Seaman Cases, Decisions & Opinions

Honolulu Maritime & Ocean Injury Lawyer Bill Lawson

Law Office of William H. Lawson

What We Do at Accident Lawyer Hawaii - video Honolulu Personal Injury Attorney - Claims We Handle Personal Injury Attorney Hawaii results Honolulu Personal Injury Attorney - Call us now

Awards and Honors


AV Preeminent rated by Martindale Hubbell
Martindale Hubbell - AV rated lawyer - Best Rating Possible


Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum
Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum


AVVO Top Rated Personal Injury Attorney
AVVO Top Rated Personal Injury Attorney, 10 of 10


ATLA Top 100 Trial Lawyers
ATLA Top 100


5.0 of 5.0 top rated by Lawyers.com
Lawyers.com - Rated 5.0 out of 5.0 - Top Rating Possible


National Trial Lawyers - Top Lawyer
National Trial Lawyers - Top 100 Trial Lawyers


Million Dollar Advocates Forum
Million Dollar Advocates Forum


American Society of Legal Advocates - Top 100 - 2014
American Society of Legal Advocates - Top 100 - 2014


Marquis' Who's Who
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
AVVO Clients' Choice Personal Injury Lawyer


American Society of Legal Advocates - Top 100 - 2013
American Society of Legal Advocates - Top 100 - 2013



Jones Act - Table of Contents

The Jones Act - Cases, Decisions and Opinions

IV. NEGLIGENCE - B. Vicarious Liability - 2. Particular Acts of Crew


276. Horseplay

Seaman was not entitled to recover under 46 USCS Appx section 688 for injuries sustained in good-natured scuffle with shipmate. Meyer v Dollar S.S. Line (1930, DC Wash) 43 F2d 425, 1930 AMC 1095, 1269, affd (CA9 Wash) 49 F2d 1002, 1931 AMC 1059.

Where libellant is injured by "horseplay" of seamen on ship, he may not recover from shipowner on ground of negligence since shipowner cannot be held responsible for this type of conduct of his seamen. Ford v United Fruit Co. (1947, DC Cal) 75 F Supp 311, affd (CA9 Cal) 171 F2d 641.


277. Operation of equipment

There was no evidence that either crowded condition of vessel's hold or fogginess produced by frozen cargo proximately caused longshoreman's injuries resulting from his being struck by spreader bar while disengaging it from ropes, but there was convincing evidence that accident and resultant injuries were solely and proximately caused by operational negligence of plaintiff's fellow employees in their lack of coordination. Shephard v S/S Nopal Progress (1974, CA5 La) 497 F2d 963, reh den (CA5 La) 502 F2d 1167, and reh den (CA5 La) 502 F2d 1168, and cert den 420 US 937, 43 L Ed 2d 414, 95 S Ct 1147.

Plaintiff who sustained injuries aboard employer's drilling rig when he was struck by "lead tongs" while attempting to disengage drill pipe, states cause of action in negligence against employer under 46 USCS Appx section 688, based on employer's breach of duty to furnish plaintiff with reasonably safe workplace, in light of evidence that employer permitted lead tongs to swing recklessly, either by driller's failure to use backup tongs in violation of employer's safety rule or by driller's application of too much torque. Ober v Penrod Drilling Co. (1984, CA5 La) 726 F2d 1035.

In action by seaman for injuries received when landing block was catapulted from dock into hold of vessel when operator of lumber carrier drove onto one end of it, failure of defendant's employees who placed block on dock to anticipate movement of carrier was proximate and efficient cause of plaintiff's injuries; conduct of operator in driving carrier onto block was not efficient intervening cause, but even if it were concurrent cause of injuries, defendant would not thereby be relieved from liability. Burke v W. R. Chamberlin & Co. (1942) 51 Cal App 2d 419, 125 P2d 120.

Where vessel is seaworthy and equipment is in perfect condition, seaman cannot sustain action under 46 USCS Appx section 688 for injury to his eye caused by fishhook and line in hands of another seaman since such injury is part of inherent normal hazards of deep sea fishing. Alvarez v Van Camp Sea Food Co. (1952) 113 Cal App 2d 647, 248 P2d 943.


278. --Winches

Employer was negligent in causing injury to signalman by putting winch into operation without signal. W. J. McCahan Sugar Refining & Molasses Co. v Stoffel (1930, CA3 Pa) 41 F2d 651, 1930 AMC 1482.

Foreman improperly raising load which broke and fell on laborer who was assisting unloading in hold constituted negligence in operation of winch. American Sugar Refining Co. v Nassif (1930, CA1 Mass) 45 F2d 321.

Negligence of winchman in operation of winch will not preclude recovery for reason that claimant, as his superior officer, could not control immediate conduct of winchman. Petition of Crosby Fisheries, Inc. (1929, DC Wash) 31 F2d 1004.

Injury to signalman was caused by negligence of winchman in obeying signal of another. Richardson v United States (1933, DC NY) 1933 AMC 912.


279. Assisting in leaving vessel

Where cook in leaving tugboat found it necessary to pass first to barge alongside before reaching dock and sought to reach barge by means of ladder held by another, who released ladder as he was climbing, causing him to fall, recovery will be allowed for negligence of fellow servant under 46 USCS Appx section 688, since both men in leaving, were acting within course and scope of employment. Wong Bar v Suburban Petroleum Transport, Inc. (1941, CA2 NY) 119 F2d 745.

Recovery will be denied under 46 USCS Appx section 688 when plaintiff jumped from deck of ship to dock, sustaining injuries for which he sued, after another member of crew refused to place ladder over side upon plaintiff's request. Jackson v Pittsburgh S.S. Co. (1942, CA6 Ohio) 131 F2d 668.


280. Handling of weapon

Injury caused by chief officer negligently discharging his pistol while cleaning it is within shipowner's liability. Stratton v United States (1934, DC NY) 8 F Supp 429, 1934 AMC 1161.

Employer steamship company was not liable for death of employee who was shot by fellow employee with pistol which passenger had directed him to clean where fellow employee had abandoned his duties in displaying pistol. Rourange v Colombian S. S. Co. (1938) 254 App Div 906, 5 NYS2d 537, affd 280 NY 591, 20 NE2d 28, cert den 308 US 565, 84 L Ed 474, 60 S Ct 77.


281. Miscellaneous

Concurrent and cumulative negligence of cook in using material so combustible as gasoline to kindle fire, following negligent failure of master to use due care to provide safe and suitable fuel, is actionable. Osland v Star Fish & Oyster Co. (1939, CA5 Ala) 107 F2d 113, 1940 AMC 127, later app (CA5 Ala) 118 F2d 772, cert den 314 US 615, 86 L Ed 495, 62 S Ct 86, reh den 314 US 716, 86 L Ed 570, 62 S Ct 477.

In libel by steward for personal injuries incurred when coffeepot upset and scalded him, cook was negligent in setting coffeepot on floor of galley in heavy weather. Carroll v United States (1943, CA2 NY) 133 F2d 690, 1943 AMC 339.

Ordinary seaman is not required to anticipate that dropping his end of rectangular bundle not more than three feet to floor would injure other seaman. Rosenquist v Isthmian S.S. Co. (1953, CA2 NY) 205 F2d 486.

Jones Act - TABLE OF CONTENTS


Facebook Company page for Accident Lawyer Hawaii - William H. Lawson LinkedIn Company page for Top Honolulu Personal Injury Attorney William H. Lawson Google+ page for Bill Lawson - HI's Best PI Law Firm




Accident Lawyer Hawaii

Law Office of
William H. Lawson

Century Square
1188 Bishop St. Suite 2902
Honolulu, HI 96813


New client hotline:
(808) 524-5300


Pearl City, Aiea and Waipahu:
(808) 671-7600


Main business phone:
(808) 528-2525


Directions to Honolulu office


Get a free consultation


HI accident news
and articles


Court cases re:
Hawaii accident law


Lawson Law
Scholarship 2017





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".










Choose one of the 4 menus below:



There is NO CHARGE for sending your case information to our law firm. The information provided on this website is preliminary and informational ONLY. It is not legal advice. The use of our webpages does not establish an attorney-client relationship. This website is copyright 1999-2017 and the contents of this website are the property of Personal Injury Attorney William H Lawson. The Terms and Conditions of Use for this website and our Privacy Policy are available here for your consideration. All rights reserved.

Jones Act Cases - Decisions - Opinions

We thank you for visiting our site!