Source: http://www.accident-lawyer-hawaii.com/i-c-3-b.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 22:16:36+00:00

Document:
46 USCS Appx § 688 did not apply to action by Greek seaman, injured aboard Panamanian ship owned by Liberian corporation in international waters notwithstanding that corporation maintained checking account in New York bank, where none of stock was owned by any citizen of United States and corporation did not maintain place of business in United States. Dassigienis v Cosmos Carriers & Trading Corp. (1971, CA2 NY) 442 F2d 1016.
Jones Act, 46 USCS Appx § 688, does not apply to suits between foreign seaman and foreign vessel. The Astra (1940, DC Md) 34 F Supp 152.
Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) is not applicable to suit by Yugoslavian seaman for injuries sustained aboard Yugoslavian ship on high seas, since seaman undertakes to be bound by law of nation to which ship belongs. Radovcic v The Princ Pavle (1942, DC NY) 45 F Supp 15.
Federal District Court did not have jurisdiction of action brought under 46 USCS Appx § 688 where seaman was Greek, signed for service aboard Greek ship and was injured in Japanese port. Tsitsinakis v Simpson, Spence & Young (1950, DC NY) 90 F Supp 578.
Where libelant, Egyptian national and nonresident of United States, brought suit for personal injuries against Norwegian corporation, registered owner of Norwegian flag tanker on which libelant served and was injured while in New York port, court did not have subject matter jurisdiction of 46 USCS Appx § 688 action. The Shahid v A/S J. Ludwig Mowinckels Rederi (1964, SD NY) 236 F Supp 751, 1964 AMC 1856.
Neither 46 USCS Appx § 688 nor general maritime law of United States should be applied in controversy in which vessel is foreign flag vessel, owners of vessel are foreign, no defendants are substantially involved with United States, plaintiff is in foreign country, crewmembers are almost totally foreign nationals, trial in United States would require interpreter for those witnesses from foreign country or elsewhere and expense of bringing witnesses and plaintiff from foreign countries is greater than if few witnesses and records here, if indeed necessary, when transported from United States. Dorizos v Lemos & Pateras, Ltd. (1977, SD Ala) 437 F Supp 120.
Employment by foreign shipowner of single American agent is insufficient ground to require application of Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) to suit by Greek national, a permanent resident of United States, for injuries sustained on high seas aboard vessel owned by Panamanian corporation which was owned by Greek citizens. Frangiskatos v Konkar Maritime Enterprises, S.A. (1972, CA2 NY) 471 F2d 714.
Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) does not apply to Danish corporation in suit by Danish seaman for injuries sustained in American waters aboard Danish vessel, despite seaman's contention that principal stockholders of Danish corporation are also principle stockers of American corporation which acted as ship's general agent in New York, since circumstances of case do not warrant piercing of corporate identities which, even if done, would not render Danish corporation American corporation for purposes of Act. Hansen v A. S. D. S.S. V. Endborg (1957, DC NY) 155 F Supp 387.
Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) does not apply in case where Liberian registered vessel, which is owned and operated by Panamanian corporations and managed by British corporation with servicing agent in United States, has minimal contacts with United States where and no beneficial interest is located in United States, and thus Greek seaman's suit for injuries sustained on high seas does not fall within Act. Brillis v Chandris (U.S.A.), Inc. (1963, SD NY) 215 F Supp 520.
Although New York agent of Panamanian shipowning corporation is responsible for employing crew members and for general operation of vessel while it is in New York, Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) does not apply to Greek seaman's suit for injuries sustained on high seas aboard Liberian registered and Panamanian owned ship, since New York agent never acted as general manager of vessel and Panamanian owner exercised complete control over ship. Mihalinos v Liberian S.S. Trikala (1972, SD Cal) 342 F Supp 1237.
Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) will not apply to suit by Greek seaman for injuries sustained on high seas while working aboard Greek registered and Panamanian owned ship where seaman fails to show that American agent who managed vessel through Bermuda corporation was in fact one of real owners of corporate shipowner. Sfiridas v Santa Cecelia Co., S.A. (1973, ED Pa) 358 F Supp 108, affd without op (CA3 Pa) 493 F2d 1401.
Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) is applicable to Honduran seaman's suit for injuries sustained on high seas aboard Liberian vessel owned by Greek corporation, despite foreign ownership and registration of vessel, since Greek corporation maintained 2 agents in United States with substantial operation and financial responsibilities. Gomez v Karavias U.S.A., Inc. (1975, SD NY) 401 F Supp 104.
Ownership of American corporation which acted as Norwegian shipowner's general agent is insufficient ground for application of Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) to suit by Philippine seaman for injuries sustained in Lake Michigan aboard Norwegian ship since identity between shipowner and agent is relevant to service of process upon agent but has no bearing on facts to be considered in determining applicability of Jones Act. Manlugon v A/S Facto (1976, SD NY) 419 F Supp 550.
Fact that American agent of Liberian registered and Panamanian owned vessel executed charter contracts with foreign corporations in New York is insufficient ground for application of Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) to suit by Greek seaman for injuries received in territorial waters of India. Hoidas v Orion & Global Chartering Co. (1977, SD NY) 440 F Supp 53.
Resident alien owner, engaged in extensive business operation in United States, should not have advantage over citizens engaged in same business by allowing him to escape obligations and responsibility as "employer" under 46 USCS Appx § 688; flag, nationality of seaman, fact that seaman's employment contract was Greek and that he might be compensated there for injury are minor weights in scale compared with substantial and continuing contacts that alien owner has with United States. Hellenic Lines, Ltd. v Rhoditis (1970) 398 US 306, 26 L Ed 2d 252, 90 S Ct 1731, reh den 400 US 856, 27 L Ed 2d 94, 91 S Ct 23.
Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) is not applicable to Finish seaman's suit for injuries sustained in Holland aboard Norwegian vessel which was time-chartered by American corporations, since time-chartering by American corporation does not divest foreign ship of nationality. The Lynghaug (1941, DC Pa) 42 F Supp 713.
Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) is applicable to suit by Greek seaman for injuries received on high seas aboard Liberian vessel despite finding that none of stock of any of defendant shipowning corporations is owned by Americans, since corporate structure of shipowner in context with United States indicates sufficiently substantial contacts to require application of Act. Mattes v National Hellenic American Line, S. A. (1977, SD NY) 427 F Supp 619.
Provisions of Jones Act, 46 USCS Appx § 688, are limited to seamen at work upon domestic vessels. The Seirstad (1928, DC NY) 27 F2d 982.
Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) is not applicable to suit for injuries suffered by seaman during voyage between Britain and America on British vessel, despite fact that ship was built specifically for Britain-New York run, stayed in New York equally as long as in Britain, and took on as many supplies in one country as in the other, since vessel is foreign vessel on grounds that it is owned by British corporation and sails under British flag. Catherall v Cunard S.S. Co. (1951, DC NY) 101 F Supp 230.
Foreign seaman, who signs on foreign ship in foreign port, does not come under 46 USCS Appx § 688 merely because foreign ship enters American ports. Tselentis v Michalinos Maritime & Commercial Co. (1952, DC NY) 104 F Supp 942.
Alien seaman serving upon foreign ships owned by aliens, and bound upon voyage which begins and ends outside United States, cannot sue under Jones Act, 46 USCS Appx § 688, for injuries suffered while ship happens to be stopping at port of call within United States waters. Romero v International Terminal Operating Co. (1956, DC NY) 142 F Supp 570, affd (CA2 NY) 244 F2d 409, vacated on other grounds 358 US 354, 3 L Ed 2d 368, 79 S Ct 468, reh den 359 US 962, 3 L Ed 2d 769, 79 S Ct 795.
Greek seamen is not entitled to bring action under 46 USCS Appx § 688 where fact that injury occurred in United States waters is sole factor in favor of applying United States law where seamen is Greek citizen, vessel sales under Greek flag, corporation owning vessel is Panamanian and is owned and managed by Greeks, Greek forum is not inaccessible and contract of employment selected Greece as forum for resolution of all disputes arising out of employment relationship. Volykrakis v M/V Isabelle (1982, CA5 La) 668 F2d 863.
In 46 USCS Appx § 688 action involving injury sustained in American port by foreign seaman aboard foreign vessel in course of voyage beginning and ending in foreign country, appropriate course is for federal district court to deny § 68 claim on merits; but this denial of § 688 claim on merits leaves court free to consider whether, with due regard to doctrine of forum non conveniens, it should take jurisdiction and apply relevant foreign law. Volkenburg v Nederland-Amerik, Stoomv. Maats (1963, DC Mass) 221 F Supp 925, 1964 AMC 53, affd (CA1 Mass) 336 F2d 480, 1964 AMC 1958, 8 FR Serv 2d 34.13, Case 12.
Fact that Norwegian shipowner maintained American husbanding agent in New York is insufficient to require application of Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) in suit by Norwegian seaman for injuries sustained in American waters aboard ship owned by Norwegian shipowner. Nakken v Fearnley & Eger (1955, DC NY) 137 F Supp 288.
Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) does not apply to Greek seaman's suit for personal injuries sustained in American waters aboard Liberian registered and Panamanian owned vessel, although Panamanian corporation employed American husbanding agent which arranged for tugs, pilots, stevedores, and customs clearance, since foreign corporation's contacts are insufficient to warrant application of Act. Damaskinos v Societa Navigacion Interamericana, S. A., Panama (1966, SD NY) 255 F Supp 919.

References: § 688
 § 688
 § 688
 § 688
 § 688
 § 688
 § 688
 § 688
 V. 
 § 688
 § 688
 § 688
 § 688
 § 688
 § 688
 § 688
 § 688
 § 688
 § 688
 § 688
 § 688
 § 688
 § 688
 § 688
 § 68
 § 688
 § 688
 § 688