Maritime Law
- The Law Governing Injured Maritime Workers' Claims
- Recovery for Wrongful Death
- Defenses to Maritime Personal Injury Claims
- Jurisdiction and Venue in Maritime Claims
The Law Governing Injured Maritime Workers' Claims
The remedies and damages available to an injured employee against his or her employer and a vessel on which the employee is working are determined by the employee's "status," meaning whether the employee is a (1) seaman, (2) non-seaman maritime worker, or (3) non-maritime worker.
A seaman's potential claims for any negligence of his employer or co-employees and potentially against the vessel owner or operator for any unseaworthiness are governed by negligence and tort principles of law. The third potential claim a seaman may have is for maintenance and cure. (Medical bills to a point of maximum medical cure; and a daily living allowance)
A non-seaman maritime worker's recovery against his or her employer is usually under the Longshore Harbor and Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA), which provides a traditional workers' compensation scheme of benefits. However, a non-seaman maritime worker's potential claim against the vessel upon which he or she is working is governed by tort and negligence principles.
An injured non-maritime worker's compensation is governed by state workers' compensation, except when the personal injury is caused by the employer's maritime negligence.
Finally, a claim by a seaman, non-seaman maritime worker, or non-maritime worker against negligent third-parties who caused an injury on the water is usually governed by general maritime tort law or state tort law.
The Law of Seamen
A "seaman" is usually a member of the crew of a vessel or watercraft who is exposed to the "perils of the sea" as part of his employment. A worker must have an employment-related connection to a vessel that is capable of transportation over water. A worker employed primarily on a fixed platform or vessel under construction or repair is typically not a seaman. Further, the employee must perform some work that contributes to the function of the vessel or its mission.
The one rule-of-thumb for seaman status is that the injured individual must have worked at least 30% of his or her time on a vessel in navigation. That determination is made by considering the seaman's employment with the particular employer as a whole, not just on a "snapshot" basis at the time of the injury. This means that if a worker spends over 30% of his time on a vessel in navigation, but is injured while performing some task on land, he or she may potentially still be considered a seaman based on the whole picture of his or her employment. Also, seamen often work on more than one vessel. The law recognizes that a seaman can be connected to a "fleet of vessels," which means that the group of vessels are owned or controlled by the same employer or are acting together to accomplish a common purpose. Finally, the definition of a vessel is sometimes a hotly-contested legal issue in seaman and maritime litigation. The United States Supreme Court has recently spoken on the issue and greatly expanded the definition of a "vessel" to mean any watercraft that is practically capable of transportation on water. "Vessels" for purposes of seaman status can now include movable and jack-up rigs, barges, and dredges, as well as more traditional types of boats and vessels.
If a worker injured on a vessel is considered to be a seaman, he or she may have claims and remedies against an employer that other maritime and non-maritime workers do not have, including Maintenance and Cure, Tort Damages for the Vessel's Unseaworthiness and Tort Damages under the Jones Act.
Non-Seamen, Maritime Workers
Many individuals injured while engaged in maritime-related employment are not seamen, such as longshoremen, shipbuilders, ship repairers, and others who work on or near the water whose jobs are related to the transportation of goods and passengers over water. To protect such maritime employees who are not sufficiently connected to a vessel or fleet of vessels or who do not spend 30% or more of their time working as a crew member on a vessel, the United States Congress passed a worker's compensation scheme called the Longshore Harbor and Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA). To qualify for benefits under the LHWCA, an injured employee must be engaged in maritime employment. By law, maritime employment includes workers who are longshoremen, shipbuilders, ship repairers, and shipbreakers. Courts have also found that workers who perform loading and unloading of ships and vessels are performing maritime work. The injured employee must also have been hurt while working on navigable water or on a pier, wharf, or other area or type of construction customarily used by an employer in loading, unloading, repairing, or building a vessel.
A large group of non-seamen, maritime employees fall under the LHWCA's coverage without regard to the type of employment or whether they were injured on navigable water, because of a law known as the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act ("OCSLA"). That law provides that the LHWCA covers any employee injured as a result of operations involving drilling, exploring, transporting, or developing of oil and gas on the Outer Continental Shelf, unless the employee is a seaman or a public employee.
An injured employee who falls under the LHWCA cannot sue his or her employer for tort damages or negligence. Instead, the employee is entitled to worker's compensation benefits under the LHWCA. However, the LHWCA contains an exception that an injured maritime worker can still sue the operator and owner of a vessel for injuries caused by the vessel's negligence: This is called a Section 905(b) action.
General Maritime Tort Law
When a maritime worker or any other person is injured by a maritime tort or negligence, federal maritime law usually provides the rules of law and remedies. Frequent types of maritime torts are those arising out of vessel collisions, injuries to seamen resulting from conditions of vessels on which they are serving but which are owned by third-parties who are not their employers, and claims by maritime workers who are not seamen against vessels and their operators under section 905(b) of the LHWCA.
Most general maritime tort cases involve theories of negligence. The question of whether there was a legal duty to the injured person that was breached in a maritime negligence case turns primarily on whether the injury was a foreseeable result of the negligent act or failure to act. General maritime law also imposes liability on an employer for the negligent and tortuous acts of an employee committed in the course and scope of that employee's work. If a party's maritime negligence causes injury, the victim can sue to recover damages for personal injuries, including pain and suffering, as well as certain economic damages, such as loss of future earnings.
An important feature of general maritime law is that if there is more than one tortfeasor or negligent party whose conduct caused the injuries and damages, the injured victim can recover 100% of his damages from either one of the tortfeasors. This is known legally as "joint and several liability."
Recovery for Wrongful Death
What claims and remedies a family or beneficiary has for the wrongful death of a seaman or other individual under maritime and admiralty law depends on the deceased's status and where the death occurred. This is a particularly complicated area of maritime law with many inconsistencies as to who may recover what as a result of the death of a loved one caused by negligence at sea or on water. Survivors and legal beneficiaries may consult with an attorney. Different wrongful death schemes and laws intersect with each other.
Defenses to Maritime Personal Injury Claims
Employers and vessel owners and operators sued under maritime and admiralty law have various defenses to tort liability and to limit their damages. William Gee has prosecuted claims in which these defenses have been raised and has successfully defeated them for many of his clients.
Workers' Compensation and Borrowing Employers
Under the "borrowed servant doctrine," a third-party operator or vessel owner who "borrows" another employer's worker may be legally considered that injured employee's employer for purposes of being protected from tort liability by the LHWCA or state workers' compensation act if the borrowing employer assumes enough control over the worker. An injured worker may be deemed to be a borrowed servant at the time of his injury if the "borrowing" employer against whom recovery is sought had the power to control and direct the employee in the performance of his or her work.
Limitation of Liability Act
A ship owner facing potential liability for a maritime accident may file suit in federal court seeking protection under the federal Limitation of Liability Act. The Limitation Act allows the owner of a vessel who lacks knowledge of the condition that caused an injury or accident to limit its liability for damages arising out of the accident to the value of the vessel and its freight pending at the time of the accident. Limitation can be "busted," however, if an injured victim can prove the vessel owner had knowledge of negligence or an unseaworthy condition that caused the accident or injury.
Contributory Negligence/Comparative Fault
General maritime law does not hold that contributory negligence by the injured victim as a bar to recovery of damages. But an injured party's recovery from a negligent party is reduced by the percentage of his or her own fault, if the victim's fault is proven by the defendant.
Jurisdiction and Venue in Maritime Claims
Most types of maritime cases can be brought in either state or federal court. Certain actions, however, must be brought only in federal court, as the federal district courts have exclusive jurisdiction over some matters, including limitation of liability proceedings, Rule 9(h) admiralty cases, in rem cases against a vessel, and a claim under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. Typically, the injured plaintiff gets to choose whether to file a suit in state or federal court.