A federal statute known as the Jones Act allows employees to file negligence-based lawsuits against their maritime employers. However, in order to qualify under the Jones Act an injured maritime employee must meet the definition of a “seaman”. The technical definition of a seaman states that the employee will be “more or less permanently assigned to a vessel or fleet of vessels in navigation.” Each of the three main elements of this definition must be met in order for an injured maritime worker to qualify as a seaman under the Jones Act.

The first requirement that the maritime worker be more or less permanently assigned to the vessel is generally defined as requiring the worker to spend at least 30 percent of his working time aboard vessels. Many cases have addressed this issue and, over time, the courts have held that a worker who spends 30 percent or more of his time on vessels will meet this requirement of the Jones Act. It is commonly referred to as the “30 Percent Rule”.

The second requirement in order to satisfy the definition of a “seaman” is that the employee must be assigned to work aboard a “vessel”. Any type of traditional vessel such as a tug boat, crew boat, supply boat or other clearly defined United States Coast Guard vessels certainly satisfy this second requirement. However, in the Gulf of Mexico very many special purpose structures such as jack-up drilling rigs, semi-submersible drilling rigs and drill ships also have been defined as a vessel under the Jones Act. The United States Supreme Court has stated that any structure that is “practically capable of navigation” can meet the definition of a vessel under the Jones Act.

It should also be noted under the definition of vessel that the employee does not necessarily have to be assigned to one specific vessel. The Jones Act allows an employee to qualify as a seaman even if he is assigned to several vessels which constitute a fleet of vessels. However, there is a requirement that this fleet of vessels be under common ownership or control. In other words, typically individuals who are randomly assigned to vessels owned, operated and controlled by many different parties will have a difficult time establishing that they were assigned to a fleet of vessels under common ownership or control. Austin wireline workers as well as other specialized workers in the Gulf of Mexico face this challenge in satisfying the definition of a seaman under the Jones Act.

The last requirement of the definition of a seaman under the Jones Act states that the vessel must be “in navigation”. This term is not technically defined, but rather much more broadly and generally defined under the Jones Act. In other words, as long as the vessel is performing some type of work that is in furtherance of its general purpose the courts will usually hold that the vessel is in navigation. For example, lift-boats and jack-up drilling rigs still qualify as vessels even though they are jacked up out of the water and actually drilling for oil or gas. The vessel does not need to be moving on the water in order to qualify as “in navigation”.

The federal Jones Act statute applies only to maritime workers who meet the technical definition of a “seaman” under the Act. Many maritime workers will simply allow their employers to determine the type of compensation scheme that the worker may fall under if he suffers an injury. However, the Jones Act is generally much more beneficial for the employee than other statutes such as the Longshore Act. It is very important for an injured maritime worker to learn the definition of a seaman and immediately determine if they satisfy that definition if they suffer an injury while working. If they are able to qualify under the Jones Act it is very likely that they will receive the largest possible recovery for their injury.

Looking to find the most information on the definition of a seaman, then visit www.jonesactlaw.com to find the best advice on maritime law for you.

Tagged with:

Filed under: Law

Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!