Seaman status can be tricky. Especially when the injury occurs after an employee is fired but before the employee reaches shore. The Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston, recently reversed a lower court’s grant of summary judgment to a defendant and against a ship captain who was injured while in transit from a dredge to shore. The facts are interesting, to say the least: In April 2012, Cepeda captained one of Orion Marine’s dredges. On April 4, when Cepeda’s dredge was operating in the Houston Ship Channel, Cepeda’s supervisor, Jorge Cordova, came aboard and fired Cepeda from his position as captain. Cepeda disputes that his termination was effective immediately, and maintains that Cordova told him he was eligible for another position on the vessel. But it is undisputed that Cepeda then gathered his personal belongings and on Cordova’s order boarded a skiff, which Cordova piloted to a Baytown landing. CepedaRead more
Borrowed Welder Was Not a Seaman
A new case out of the Fifth Circuit addresses seaman status for a welder. The welder was employed by a contract company. During his employment with the contractor, the welder worked “on various rigs, barges, and vessels” owned by the contractor’s clients. But, “he spent less than thirty percent of his time in service of any one vessel or group of vessels.” One day, the welder went to work on a barge, the D/B SUPERIOR PERFORMANCE, and he was injured in a gas explosion while welding inside a well platform. At the time of the accident, the welder was working a job that was scheduled to last two months. An important issue in the welder’s case was whether he was a “seaman.” The Supreme Court has articulated a two-prong test to determine seaman status under the Jones Act: An employee’s duties must contribute to the function of the vessel or to theRead more
What is a Jones Act Seaman? What is the 30% Rule?
One of the most asked questions in Jones Act litigation is, “What does it mean to be a seaman?” The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit just clarified its answer…again. In Alexander v. Express Energy Services Operating, the injured worker was a lead hand/operator in the defendant’s “plug and abandonment (“P & A”) department, which specializes in plugging decommisioned oil wells on various platforms off the coast of Louisiana for [the defendant’s] customers.” The worker’s job duties included: Ensuring that everything was up and running properly on the deck of the platform; Ensuring that the plugging operations were successful; Working with the P & A team to check the pressure of well gauges and valves Removing the bridge plug from the well, placing a nipple in the well, and pumping fluids down the well to kill it. Once the well was plugged, then the P & ARead more
Brief in Opposition Filed in Dize, a Jones Act “Seaman Status” Case
The Brief in Opposition has been filed in Dize v. Association of Maryland Pilots, the case concerning seaman status for maritime workers who spend time in the service of a moored vessel. The Brief in Opposition is a good read that questions the existence of the circuit split advanced by Ms. Dize in her petition. Here is the Introduction to the Brief in Opposition (with internal citations omitted where possible): In Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 347 (1995), this Court held that, to qualify as a “seaman” under the Jones Act, an employee “must have a connection to a vessel in navigation (or an identifiable group of such vessels) that is substantial in terms of both its duration and its nature.” With respect to the “duration” element of that requirement, the Court endorsed “an appropriate rule of thumb”: “A worker who spends less than about 30 percent of hisRead more
More Briefs Filed in Dize v. Association of Maryland Pilots
In 1995, the Supreme Court decided Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 347 (1995), wherein it announced a test for determining “seaman” status. To qualify as a “seaman” the employee must (1) contribute to the function of a vessel or to the accomplishment of its mission, and (2) have a connection to a vessel in navigation that is substantial in both duration and nature. The Supreme Court favorably cited a rule of thumb from the Fifth Circuit whereby an employee would be denied “seaman” status if they spent less than 30% of their time in the service of a vessel in navigation. Last year, the Court of Appeals of Maryland decided Dize v. Association of Maryland Pilots, which addressed the “seaman” status of an employee who maintained vessels that are dockside or ashore. The court determined that such work does not factor into the 30% rule because maintaining a mooredRead more
Supreme Court Petition Filed in Dize v. Association of Maryland Pilots
On April 18, 2014, counsel for Jennifer Dize, the personal representative of the Estate of William Smith Dize, filed a interesting and very well-written petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States. The issue: To qualify as a “seaman” under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30104, a maritime worker who “contribute[s] to the function of [a] vessel or to the accomplishment of its mission” must have “a connection to a vessel in navigation (or to an identifiable group of such vessels) that is substantial in terms of both its duration and its nature.” Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 347, 368 (1995) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). In assessing “substantiality,” this Court has endorsed a “rule of thumb” that, ordinarily, a qualifying seaman must spend 30 percent or more of his time in service of a vessel in navigation, id. at 371, but this CourtRead more
Plaintiff-Seaman Can’t Recover Emotional Damages For Witnessing Injury To Someone Else
Plaintiff worked as a vessel repair supervisor at his employer’s shipyard facility. His primary responsibility was the maintenance and repair of Employer’s life boats. He spent roughly 70% of his time aboard those vessels. The other 30% of the time, Plaintiff worked in the shipyard’s fabrication shop or operating a land-based crane. It was during his land-based maintenance duties that Plaintiff was injured by a falling crane that crashed into a nearby building. Plaintiff sustained a broken left foot, a severely broken right foot, and an abdominal hernia. To make matters worse, Plaintiff’s cousin’s husband (another employee at the shipyard) was crushed by the crane and killed. After a three-day trial, a jury concluded that Claimant was a Jones Act seaman, that Employer was negligent, and that Claimant was entitled to $2,400,000 in damages, which included $1,000,000 for past and future mental pain and suffering. Employer appealed, challenging inter aliaRead more
Alabama: Prior Longshore Settlement Not Determinative of Seaman Status
Purdue and Williams worked as line handlers for a shipping company that provided line-handling services to vessels docking and undocking at various terminals in the Port of Mobile. Much of Purdue’s and Williams’s work was performed dockside, but they sometimes worked on line-handling boats maintained by their employer. On June 19, 2008, while performing their line handler duties aboard one of their employer’s boats, an accident occurred. Purdue and Williams were hooked to an ocean-going tanker when the tanker’s lines began to retract, pulling their 17-foot boat from the water. As a result, Purdue’s and Williams’s boat capsized. Purdue was able to climb to the top of the capsized boat but Williams, who could not swim, drowned. A few months later, Purdue and a representative of the Williams estate filed suit against their employer, as well as Groton Pacific and International Tanker Management (the ocean-going tanker’s managers). They alleged thatRead more