Source: https://www.lattianderson.com/articles/jones-act-regulatory-basis-of-liability/
Timestamp: 2018-12-12 02:35:22
Document Index: 46657155

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 30104', '§688', '§ 51', '§ 30901', '§ 741', '§ 31101', '§ 782', '§ 327', '§ 30101', '§ 740', '§ 3', '§ 441', '§ 1333', '§ 1331', '§ 1332', '§ 1331', '§ 53', '§ 60', '§ 60', '§ 51', '§30104', '§30104', '§30105', '§30105', '§30106', '§30106']

Home » Jones Act Regulatory Basis of Liability
Posted on November 25, 2009 Author Carolyn LattiCategories Articles, Jones Act
1. Remedies of Seaman for Injury or Death
Maintenance and cure under general maritime law
Cause of action for unseaworthiness under general maritime
Cause of action for negligence under Jones Act
2. Jones Act
Also called Merchant Marine Act of 1920, recently recodified at 46 U.S.C. §§ 30104, 30105, 30106(prior to recodification 46 U.S.C., §688 et. seq.)
Creates a cause of action of negligence against employer for any seaman injured during employment
Incorporates Federal Employers Liability Act, FELA, 45 U.S.C. §§ 51-60.
3. Who is the Defendant : Employer
Employed by private corporations, private entity or private individual
Employed by public entity
applies whether on vessel owned by US or owned by private entity
no Jones Act claim
Employed by private corporation, entity or individual but United States owned vessel being operated pursuant to contract
Suits in Admiralty Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30901 ( prior to recodification 46 U.S.C §§ 741-752) & Public Vessels Act, 46 U.S.C.§ 31101 (prior to recodification 46 U.S.C. § 782)
2 year statute of limitations, suit cannot be filed until claim administratively disallowed which occurs when MARAD fails to give written notice of allowance or disallowances within 60 days of receipt of the claim
Notice letter pursuant to 46 C.F.R. § 327
Venue is where Plaintiff resides, Plaintiff’s principal place of business or vessel found,
Admiralty Extension Act, 46 U.S.C. App. § 30101 (prior to recodification 46 U.S.C. App. § 740)
Suits cannot be brought against the United States until 6 months after the claim was filed with the agency that owns the vessel
Applies in cases where the vessel was on navigable waters but injury was done on land
Need state statute waiver of sovereign immunity
Nrought in state court
Need to look at state statute and case law to determine whether allow Jones Act cases
Need to look at what is state notice and statute requirement and follow that
3 years statute of limitations, except PVA, SAA and individual state, Supra 3c,d
Date begins when seaman aware or should have been aware of his injury and causal connection to work
For latent injury cases the statute runs on date seamen discovered or reasonably should have discovered both injury and cause
Individual State statutes and presentment notice, need to look for their notice and suit requirements
5. Seaman Status
Test for seaman status established in McDermott International, Inc. v. Wilander, 498 U.S. 337, 11 S.Ct. 807, 112 L.Ed. 2d 866 (1991) and Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 347, 115 S.Ct. 2172, 132 L.E.2d 314 (1995)
Seaman “must contribute to the function of the vessel or to the accomplishment of its mission.” Wilander, 498 U.S. at 355.
Seaman have “employment related connection to vessel in navigation that is substantial in terms of both its duration and its nature” Chandris, Inc., 515 U.S. at 368, 370.
What qualifies as vessel for determining seaman status
“The word “vessel” includes every description of watercraft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used as a means of transportation on water.” Citing 1 U.S.C. § 3, Stewart v. Dutra Constr. Co., 543 U.S. 481, 125 S.Ct. 1118, 160 L.Ed. 2d 932 (2005)
Seaman can be assigned to a fleet of vessels as long as establish common ownership or control over the vessels, Harbor Tug & Barge Co. v. Papai, 520 U.S. 548, 117 S.C. 1535, 137 L.Ed.2d 800 (1997),
Scientific Personnel on Oceanographic Vessels
Case law has interpreted that scientific personnel who serve on research vessels are not considered Jones Act seamen under Oceanographic Research Vessel Act, (ORVA) 46 U.S.C. App. § 441 et. seq.
Key case is Presley v. Caribbean Seal, 709 F.2d 406 (5th Cir. 1983)-
Arguably it is up to interpretation, District Court case of Presley v. Caribbean Seal, 537 F.Supp. 956 (S.D. Tex. 1982),-good legislative history of why scientific personnel should be Jones Act seaman
Also argue that Plaintiff’s duties on vessel do not classify as scientific personnel
Need to examine what worker did on vessel and establish that not scientific personnel
Not in Fifth Circuit fight that ORVA not exclude scientific personnel as seamen
Jones Act excludes foreign seaman engaged in offshore oil and gas production
Jones Act not limited to seamen who hold American citizenship or are residents of United States, if vessel flies United States flag then seaman on board, both American and foreign are covered under the Jones Act
Problems arise of being dismissed on jurisdiction and foreign non convenience
8 factors examine to determine whether case stays
Allegiance or domicile of the injured party
The allegiance of the defendant ship owner
The place of the employment contract
The accessibility of a foreign forum
The law of forum
Ship-owners base of operation
Lauritzen v. Larsen, 345 U.S. 571, 73 S.Ct. 921, 97 L.Ed. 1254 (1953), Hellenic Lines, Ltd. V. Trhoditis, 398 U.S. 306, 90 S.Ct 1731, 26 L.ed.2d 252 (1970)
6. Commencement of Lawsuit
Need to satisfy minimum contacts standards set forth in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.C.t 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945)
Subject Matter Jurisdiction-need to determine whether federal or state court
Admiralty law-invoke Rule 9(h)-no right to jury trial, 28 U.S.C. § 1333
Federal questions, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, jury trial
Diversity, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, jury trial
File claim under the saving to suitors clause, 28 U.S.C. § 1331(1)
Cannot be removed to federal court, useful if trying to keep case in certain state
In any federal court in which Defendant incorporated, licensed to do business or does business, Pure Oil Co., v. Suarez, 384 U.S. 202, 86 S.Ct 1394, 1395, 16 L.Ed. 2d 474 (1966)
7. Standard of Liability
Reasonable care is the degree of care that reasonably prudent persons would use under like circumstances to avoid injury to self
Duty to provide a reasonably safe place to work and maintain vessel in reasonably safe condition
Act through officers, employees, agents
Have to prove that negligence was cause of injury
Defendant’s negligence is a legal cause of injury or damage if played any part, no matter how small in bringing about or causing the injury or damage
Defendant’s negligence can operate in combination with acts of another a natural cause or other cause
Burden of proof is slight, “feather light” standard
Unique to Jones Act and FELA cases
You need only find that there was some evidence that the Defendants’ negligence played a part, however small, in the development of the Plaintiff’s illness and condition complained of, Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R.R. Co., 352 U.S. 500, 506, 77 S.Ct. 443, 448 (1957), Gautreaux v. Scurlock Marine, Inc., 84 F.3d 776, 782 (5th Cir. 1996), affirmed in part and reversed in part on other grounds, 107 F.3d 331, 339 (5th Cir. 1997 (en banc), Davis v. Odeco, Inc., 18 F.3d 1237, 1242-1243 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. den., 513 U.S. 819, 115 S.Ct. 78 (1994),
If you are unable to separate the cause or causes of the Plaintiff’s illness and death between an illness caused or exacerbated by the defendants’ conduct and that resulting from a pre-existing condition, the defendants are liable for all such injuries that you have found the Plaintiff to have suffered., Stevens v. Bangor and Aroostook Railroad Company, 97 F.3d 594, 603 (1st Cir. 1996).
Prove Plaintiff was negligent and that negligence was cause of injury-same standard of negligence and causation defined above, Supra, 8a, Norfolk Southern Railway Corp. v. Sorrell, 127 S.Ct 799, 166 L.Ed.2d 638 (2007)
Does not bar recovery, damages reduced by whatever percent jury/judge finds contributory negligence caused or contributed to Plaintiff’s injury
If seaman’s actions were sole proximate cause of injuries, not recover
Seaman not liable because worked in dangerous job, place or condition
Does not assume risks from obvious conditions
11. Primary Duty Rule
Equivalent of finding no negligence
Three principals “First, the “primary duty” rule will not bar a claim of injury arising from the breach of a duty that the plaintiff did not consciously assume as a term of his employment. Second, the rule does not apply where a seaman is injured by a dangerous condition that he did not create and, in the proper exercise of his employment, could not have controller or eliminated. Third, the rule applies only to a knowingly violation of a duty consciously assumed as a term of employment. It does not apply to a momentary lapse of care by an otherwise careful seaman” Bernard v. Maersk Lines, Ltd., 22 F.3d 903, 907 (9th Cir. 1994), Moore v. The Sally J., 27 F. Supp. 2d 1255, 1262-63 (W.D. Wash. 1998).
12. Liability Jones Act & Statutory Violation
An employer’s violation of an applicable Coast Guard safety regulation that causes injury or death is negligence per se. Kernan v. American Dredging Co., 355 U.S. 426, 78 S.Ct. 394, 2 L.Ed. 2d 382 (1958); Smith v. Trans-World Drilling, Co., 772 F.2d 157 (5th Cir. 1985).
Does not matter if the injury/death was not one which the stature was designed to prevent.
In The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that in a collision case, where one party violates a statute or regulation intended to prevent collision, the burden of proof shifts to the offending party to establish that the violation “could not have been” a cause of the collision. 86 U.S. (19 Wall) 125, 22 L.Ed. 148 (1873).
Circuits have expanded the application of the Pennsylvania Rule to cover all types of Coast Guard regulations and all types of marine casualties. Continental Grain Co. v. Puerto Rico Maritime Shipping Authority, 972 F.2d 426, 436 (1st Cir. 1992), Reyes vs. Vantage Steamship Co., Inc., 609 F.2d 140 (5th Cir. 1980)(Jones Act death case); Candies Towing Co., Inc. v. M/V B&C Eserman, 673 F.2d. 91 (5th Cir. 1982) (sinking with cargo loss); Folkstone Maritime Inc. v. CSX Corp., 64 F.3d 1037 (7th Cir. 1995)(allusion case); In Re Seaboard Shipping Corp., 449 F.2d 132 (2nd Cir. 1971)(Limitation proceeding involving drowning of seamen); Smith v. Mitlof, 130 F.Supp. 2nd 578 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)(passenger case).
-under the rule established in The Pennsylvania and expanded in Continental Grain, once a Plaintiff establishes that the Defendant violated an applicable Coast guard regulation, the burden rests upon the Plaintiff “of showing not merely that her fault might not have been one of the causes, or that it probably was not, but that it could not have been” one of the causes. 972 F.2d at 436 (emphasis added). See also, Pennzoil Producing Co. v. Offshore Exp., Inc., 943 F.2d 1465, 1471-1472 (5th cir. 1991), Waterman S.S. Corp. v. Gay Cottons, 414 F.2d 724, 736-737 (9th Cir. 1969);).
Does not establish fault
Does not eliminate contributory negligence
§ 53 of the F.E.L.A eliminates the defense of contributory negligence where the employer violates a safety statute
If prove that statute was designed to prevent injury that occurred, that Defendant violated statute and prove that violation of statute caused injury then there is no contributory negligence, Kernan v. American Dredging Co., 355 U.S. 426 (1958); Fuszek v. Royal King Fisheries, Inc., 98 F.3d 514, 517 (9th Cir. 1996); Pratico v. Portland Terminal Co., 783 F.2d 255 (1st Cir. 1985); Roy Crook and Sons, Inc v. Allen, 778 F.2d 1037, 1986 AMC 2731 (5th Cir. 1985); Kelly v. Keystone Shipping, Co., 281 F.Supp. 2nd 313 (D.Ma. 2003); Martin vs. Cape Fear, Inc. 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7722 (D.Ma. 2004).
13. Statements of Employees
45 U.S.C.§ 60 authorizes ex parte communication with employees of the Defendant before and during lawsuit
-problem is that each district interprets § 60 differently as to whether allow contact or not
Cases where FELA preempts Professional Rule 4.2- Pratt v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, 54 F. Supp. 2d 78 (D.MA 1999); Blasena v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 898 F. Supp. 282 (D.N.J. 1995), United Transportation Union Local Unions 385 and 77, 1995 WL 634906 (S.D.N.Y. 1995),
Cases where FELA does not preempts Professional Rule 4.2- Weibrecht v. Southern Illinois Transfer, 241 F.3d 875 (7th Cir. 2001), Groppo v. Zappa, Inc., 2005 U.S.Dist.Lexis 5651 (D.MA 2005), In the Matter of the Complaint of PMD Enterprises Inc., 215 F.Supp.2d 519 (D. N.J. 2002), Tucker v. Norfolk & Western Railway Comp., 849 F. Supp. 1096 (E.D. VA 1994), Queensberry v. Norfolk and Western Railway Comp., 157 F.R.D. 21 (E.D. VA 1993), Woodard v. Nabors Offshore Corp., 2001 WL 13339 (E.D.La 2001), Belote v. Maritrans Operating Partners, L.P., 1998 WL 136523 (E.D.Pa 1998).
Past and future lost wages/Impairment to earning capacity
Past and future pain and suffering, mental anguish, disfigurement
Past and future medical bills/expenses
15. Death of Seaman
Incorporates wrongful death and survival sections of FELA, 45 U.S.C. § 51, 59.
Person bring suit as the personal representative of deceased and the beneficiaries are the surviving widow of husband and children
Whether death occurs on high seas or within marine league
Jones Act preempts any liability under state wrongful death statute
Damages available are loss of support, services, loss of nurture, training, education and loss of inheritance, conscious pain and suffering
No damages for loss of society and consortium-same as Death on the High Sea Act
46 USCS §30104
§30104. Personal injury to or death of seaman
(a) Cause of action. A seaman injured in the course of employment or, if the seaman dies from the injury, the personal representative of the seaman may elect to bring a civil action at law, with the right of trial by jury, against the employer. Laws of the United States regulating recovery for personal injury to, or death of, a railway employee apply to an action under this section.
(b) Venue. An action under this section shall be brought in the judicial district in which the employer resides or the employer’s principal office is located.
46 USCS §30105
§30105. Restriction on recovery by non-citizens and non-resident aliens for incidents in water of other countries
Definition. In this section, the term “continental shelf” has the meaning given that term in article I of the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf.
Restriction. Except as provided in subsection (c), a civil action for maintenance and cure or for damages for personal injury or death may not be brought under a maritime law of the United States if:
The individual suffering the injury or death was not a citizen or permanent resident alien of the United States at the time of the incident giving rise to the action;
The incident occurred in the territorial waters or waters overlaying the continental shelf of a country other than the United States; and
The individual suffering the injury or death was employed at the time of the incident by a person engaged in the exploration, development, or production of the offshore mineral or energy resources, including drilling, mapping, surveying, diving, pipelaying, maintaining, repairing, constructing, or transporting supplies, equipment, or personnel, but not including Transporting those resources by a vessel constructed or adapted primarily to carry oil in bulk in the cargo spaces.
Nonapplication. Subsection (b) does not apply if the individual bringing the action establishes that a remedy is not available under the laws of the country asserting jurisdiction over the area in which the incident occurred; and the country in which the individual suffering the injury or death maintained citizenship or residency at the time of the incident
46 USCS §30106
§30106. Time limit on bringing maritime action for personal injury or death.
Previous Carolyn Latti Navigates Maritime Law
Next Crewmember Suffers Injuries to the Face Off the Coast of Nantucket