|
The Merchant Marine Act of 1920, commonly referred to as the Jones Act, is a federal law that provides remedies to seamen who are injured during the course of their employment on a vessel. It allows injured sailors to recover damages from their employers for the negligence of the ship's owner, the captain, or fellow members of the ship's crew. The Jones Act applies only to seamen, who are persons employed by a vessel "in navigation" and who contribute to the vessel's overall function or purpose. Essentially, these are the people who do the ship's work. Similar to other parallel statutes designed to protect injured workers, the Jones Act provides for injured seamen to receive "transportation, wages, maintenance and cure". This means it is the ship-owner's responsibility to return the injured seaman home, pay a portion of his lost wages and provide for any and all medical care until the seaman has recovered as much as he or she can. In addition, an unseaworthiness claim may be pursued if the employer is also the vessel's owner or if the injury was caused by an unsafe condition present on the vessel itself. Violation of a safety statute in causing an injury, as well as failure to provide sufficient medical care following an injury, can also result in employer liability. In fact, seamen may be protected by the Jones Act even if they are not working directly on a vessel when injured, so long as any such temporary assignment was "in the service of the ship". The Jones Act can also hold an employer liable for the negligence of other employees or individuals for which the employer is responsible. In some cases, even an independent contractor may be seen as an employee under the Jones Act. Under the Jones Act, the employer of a seaman owes him a higher duty of care than is normally associated with an ordinary negligence case. Any breach of that higher standard of duty, no matter how insignificant, that contributes to causing a seaman's injury may result in employer liability. If a seaman contributed to his own injury, the employer's liability may be reduced, but this will not reduce the amount of compensation available under the act. A claim under the Jones Act must generally be brought within three years of the injury in order to avoid the statute of limitations. If you or someone you know has been injured at sea, it is imperative that you seek legal aid as quickly as possible. Contact the Texas maritime Law Firm of Fitts Zehl by calling our toll-free number (800) 99-FITTS or by e-mailing us at info@gulfcoastmaritimelawyer.com.
Lets Bump It Up: Rig Workers May Have Been Ordered To Work Faster Just Before Explosion According to a rig worker on CBS' "60 Minutes", which aired on Sunday May 16 th, the tragic blast that killed 11 workers and injured over 100 more came after rig personnel were told to work faster. According to Mike Williams, chief electronics technician onboard the Deepwater Horizon, a BP manager said "Hey, let's bump it up. Let's bump it up," in reference to "...bumping up the rate of penetration. How fast the drill bit is going down." Williams also claimed that a crew member accidentally damaged the blowout preventer by nudging his joystick which forced 15 feet of drilling pipe through the closed BOP. As a result of this mistake, "chunks" of the preventer's rubber liner were torn away creating the potential for failure. BP has a long history of sacrificing workplace safety in exchange for increased profits. They must be held accountable for their negligence so that incidents like this will not continue to happen in the future. If you or a loved one were injured or killed in the Transocean rig explosion, contact the experienced explosion lawyers at FZ today for a free consultation. Having successfully represented over 100 individuals against BP following the 2005 Texas City refinery explosion, we know exactly what it takes to hold a multi-billion dollar corporation accountable in a court of law. Contact FZ today to put our winning team to work for you.
Crucial Rig Data Missing: Final 7 Hours Before Blast Unaccounted For During the Congressional Hearing on Wednesday May 12, 2010, officials from Transocean made the startling claim that the final seven hours of data transmitted from the Deepwater Horizon are missing and that any written logs that may have existed were lost in the rig explosion and subsequent fire. Fortunately, earlier pressure tests that indicated the presence of a leak in the well were preserved. "Our sequence of events ends at 3 o'clock in the afternoon on the 20 th ," said Transocean's President and CEO Steven Newman while speaking to Senators. It is standard procedure in the industry for all rigs to maintain data regarding any and all drilling operations. Transocean's data, in the form of daily drilling logs, indicates three of the four pressure tests mentioned (all of which failed) but did not show any evidence of the final, allegedly successful test that BP and Transocean officials relied on to continue working on the site. While in the process of converting the well from drilling to production, workers flooded it with cement in order to prevent leaks. For some reason, heavy drilling fluid (also known in the industry as "mud") responsible for keeping the well sealed was pumped out and replaced with much-lighter seawater before the final cement plug was inserted. This resulted in a massive, uncontrolled release of oil and gas that ultimately ignited, killing eleven and injuring many more. As the well spewed onto the rig's deck, workers tried frantically to engage the emergency cutoff system, known as a blowout preventer, but were unable to do so because of numerous problems with the device. If you or a loved one was injured in the Transocean/BP oil rig explosion, contact the experienced Gulf Coast maritime injury lawyers at Fitts Zehl, LLP today to register your complaint. Transocean has already moved to limit its legal liability for the disaster to $27 million, the current scrap value of the rig as it lies on the bottom of the ocean.
Deepwater Horizon: One Week Later One week after the tragic Louisiana rig explosion that injured 17 and took the lives of 11 more, questions still remain as to what caused the blast to occur. The Deepwater Horizon slipped into the ocean on April 22, two days after catching fire, leaving a massive oil slick in its place. To make things worse, some 40,000 gallons are continuing to pour from the well head each day. Remote-controlled submarines have been dispatched in an attempt to control the oil pouring out of the well but officials are uncertain about the plan's chances of success. If this fails, it could take weeks or even months to put a more permanent solution into place. British Petroleum is taking action to help contain and clean up the spill it caused by sending a fleet of ships to the area. Even so, one thing remains abundantly clear: this disaster should never have happened in the first place. If BP would have focused as much attention on maintenance, safety and accident prevention before the rig explosion as it has on clean-up efforts immediately after, the world would never have heard of the Deepwater Horizon like it has today. The brave maritime workers onboard would have quietly kept oil flowing into the United States as they had done for decades before, confident in the fact that their hard work was keeping the country strong and prosperous. Unfortunately, BP has a long history of ignoring safety in favor of profit. After their Texas City refinery exploded in 2005 killing 15 workers and injuring 300, BP failed to learn its lesson and was even fined $87 million by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration in 2009 for violating the resulting agreement that called for a number of safety improvements to be made. The Mississippi rig explosion lawyers at FZ successfully represented over 100 individuals injured or killed in that 2005 BP explosion. Let us put our experience to work for you. Contact us today.
Deepwater Horizon Sinks ? Leaves Environmental Disaster In Its Wake While the Coast Guard continued its search Friday for the 11 seamen still missing following the rig explosion, a new concern arose for authorities at the scene. The Louisiana and Mississippi coastlines are now in very real danger of being soaked in crude oil. As many as 336,000 gallons of oil could be floating up from the ocean floor each day.
Cynthia Sarthou, executive director of the environmental action group Gulf Restoration Network, stated "If it gets landward, it could be a disaster in the making". According to British Petroleum, the company operating the rig at the time of the explosion, they have "activated an extensive oil spill response". This includes remotely-operated submersibles monitoring the well from the ocean floor 5,000 feet below as well as at least 32 ships of various sizes trying to mop up any oil that manages to surface. Regardless of BP's efforts, in all likelihood, oil will contaminate the coastal habitat causing serious environmental and monetary damage. Coast Guard crews have already reported an oily sheen measuring 5 miles long and more than a mile wide snaking its way through the Gulf of Mexico.
While the Coast Guard is still trying to locate any potential survivors, families of the 11 crewmen still missing have been told that there is little chance of finding anyone alive. It is believed that all of the missing individuals were on the rig floor at the time of the explosion.
If you or a loved one were affected by this tragic explosion contact the experienced Jones Act trial lawyers at FZ today for a consultation. We have helped numerous explosion victims over the years and have the knowledge and resources to assist you in the difficult days to come.
Deepwater Horizon - Tragic Rig Explosion off the Coast of Louisiana On Tuesday, April 20, 2010, the Deepwater Horizon, an offshore drilling platform owned by Houston-based Transocean Limited, exploded with at least 126 people onboard. While most of these people escaped the blast uninjured, the United States Coast Guard reported 17 workers injured and at least 11 missing and unaccounted for. We at Fitts Zehl extend our deepest condolensces to the individuals affected by this terrible tragedy. The search for those still missing continued Wednesday using multiple ships, helicopters and even an airplane to widen the scope. The explosion, which occurred in the Gulf of Mexico about 41 miles southeast of Venice, Louisiana, left the rig burning, causing it to list badly to one side. By Thursday, the rig finally collapsed into the sea after listing badly for the past few days. Of the 17 injured workers, 3 were rushed to a trauma center in Mobile, Alabama which is renowned for its burn unit. At least 2 others were taken to a West Jefferson Hospital in the New Orleans area. At the time of the explosion, the platform was actively drilling but was not in production according to a spokesman for Transocean Ltd. The rig was under contract to British Petroleum PLC ("BP"). Environmental teams are standing by in Morgan City, Louisiana waiting to assess any environmental damage that may have occurred as a result of the explosion. Spokesmen for Transocean and BP have been largely silent regarding the cause of the explosion stating that it is still too early to pinpoint exactly what went wrong. The Deepwater Horizon, built in 2001, is a 396 foot long, 256 foot wide platform with enough space to accommodate a crew of 130 individuals. This particular rig was designed to operate in depths of up to 8,000 feet and can drill to nearly 5.5 miles. At the time of the incident, the rig was operating on a site known as the Macondo prospect in just 5,000 feet of water. The Deepwater Horizon is a type of platform known as a semi-submersible rig. These rigs are typically floated to a site where they are partially flooded with seawater and moored using a number of large anchors. These rigs never actually touch the sea floor, but merely rest low in the water above the drilling site. The Deepwater Horizon even set a world deepwater drilling record in September of 2009 when it managed to drill down to a depth exceeding 35,000 feet at a separate BP site in the Gulf of Mexico. Transocean has a total of 140 rigs worldwide with 14 operating in the Gulf of Mexico alone. According to the Minerals Management Service (MMS), the Gulf currently contains a total of 42 rigs that are actively drilling or undergoing maintenance in depths of at least 1,000 feet. Since 2001 there have been 858 fires or explosions, 69 deaths and 1,349 injuries in the Gulf of Mexico according to MMS records. If you or a loved one has been injured in the Deepwater Horizon explosion, contact the experienced offshore rig explosion lawyers at Fitts Zehl, LLP today for a free consultation.
Jones Act: Statute of Limitations For most claims of negligence under the Jones Act, the statute of limitations is three (3) years from the date of the injury. An exception to this rule applies to any vessel affiliated with the United States government. If your claim involves a vessel either owned by, operated by or under contract to the U.S. government, you will most likely have a much shorter time period to file your claim than you normally would under the Act. Your employer will often do whatever it takes to keep you from filing a lawsuit. This includes avoiding any mention of your right to recover anything beyond your basic medical treatment stemming from the accident. Remember, if you have suffered an on-the-job injury while working at sea, you must take immediate control of your situation. Do not wait for your employer to do it for you. Even if your boss does cover maintenance (living expenses) and cure (medical expenses) as he is legally obligated to do, you may still be entitled to even more money due to the unseaworthiness of the vessel or the negligence of others in causing your injury. In the wake of an accident, it is absolutely essential that you contact an experienced maritime lawyer to determine your options. Three years may seem like plenty of time, but in reality it is not a good idea to wait. The sooner you contact an experienced maritime attorney, the better off you will be. Even if you accidentally file your case under the wrong body of law, a knowledgeable offshore injury lawyer will most likely be able to correct the mistake, provided he has enough time to do so. Remember, maritime employers count on you not knowing the law. Don't give them what they want! If you or someone you love has been injured offshore, contact the experienced Texas Jones Act lawyers at Fitts Zehl, LLP today for a free consultation. The maritime injury litigators at FZ prepare every case as if it is going to trial. Let us put our winning formula to work for you.
3 Seamen killed in Egypt Cruise Ship Crash On Friday, February 26, a luxury cruise ship crashed into a dock at Sharm al-Sheikh, an Egyptian resort on the Red Sea. The accident resulted in four injuries and the deaths of three crewmen. The Italian Costa Europa, complete with 1,473 passengers, was on an 18-day cruise from Dubai to Savona when the collision occurred. While the investigation is still underway, officials did release a statement confirming that the vessel sustained damage to the starboard side of its hull. The damage consisted of a 2-meter wide hole. Following the crash, the ship was safely docked for repairs with no further accidents. When incidents such as this occur resulting in serious injury or death, negligence is more often than not a factor. It is important to begin an immediate investigation to determine exactly what happened, who was at fault and whether or not the ship was "unseaworthy" at the time of the accident. If you or a loved one has been injured offshore, contact the experienced Jones Act lawyers at Fitts Zehl, LLP today for a free consultation. We will immediately begin investigating your claim to determine the best course of action for you.
How Important Is It To Disclose Pre-Existing Injuries Or Surgeries On My Job Applications? When applying for a new job, many are tempted to leave out pre-existing injuries or past surgeries on job applications in order to avoid giving potential employers a reason not to hire them. While this strategy may get you a job, it can also cause serious problems further down the line. In the event of an injury, if it is discovered that a seaman has lied on his job application about prior injuries or surgeries, his or her employer is automatically released from the obligation of paying maintenance and cure. As you may be aware, maritime employers typically have an affirmative duty to pay maintenance (money for reasonable expenses) and cure (money for medical expenses) following an injury. Do not give them an excuse to avoid paying! If you or a loved one has been injured offshore, contact the experienced Jones Act lawyers at Fitts Zehl, LLP today for a free consultation. The maritime trial attorneys at FZ have the knowledge and skill necessary to successfully litigate all types of offshore injury claims. We proudly serve clients from throughout the entire Gulf Coast region including Houston, Galveston, Houma, New Orleans and Port Fourchon.
Commercial Divers: Jones Act or LHWCA? When a person is injured offshore, one of the first things a good maritime lawyer will do is determine which body of law will apply to the case. While this might seem like a fairly straightforward task, most attorneys have never handled a maritime case and will not have the faintest idea how to proceed. While most commercial divers will be covered under the Jones Act, a percentage of them will not qualify and will be forced to seek compensation under the less favorable Longshoreman and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA). If you or a loved one has been injured offshore, contact the experienced Texas maritime trial lawyers at Fitts Zehl, LLP today for a free consultation. In the 1992 case of Ashley v. Epic Divers, Inc., the defendant Epic was successful in arguing that its employee, a freelance diver not attached to a specific vessel or fleet of vessels, was not a seaman for Jones Act purposes. According to the court, because the diver was assigned to multiple vessels owned by several different owners, he did not meet the definition of seaman under the Jones Act. Unfortunately, this ruling has been used a great deal since in order to deny a significant portion of divers their right to pursue employers under the Jones Act. This was a huge victory for diving contractors, employers and insurance companies because the awards and settlements paid out under the Jones Act have historically always been higher than those sums paid out under the LHWCA. While one can sue for damages under the Jones Act, the LHWCA only allows the recovery of weekly compensation according to a set benefit schedule contained within the Act itself. Recently, the United States Supreme Court refined what it means to be a "seaman" for Jones Act purposes. The Court held that a worker's complete offshore work history, as well as the nature of his relationship with and contribution to vessels, must be taken into account in order to determine whether or not an individual is entitled to utilize the Jones Act. Recent U.S. Supreme Court DecisionIn the mid-1990's, the United States Supreme Court further clarified the Jones Act definition of a "seaman". The Court held that in order to determine an offshore worker's status for Jones Act purposes, his or her entire maritime work history must be analyzed. This includes the length of relationships with, and the nature of contributions to, vessels. According to the Court's holding, if a worker spends a "substantial" amount of his time (30% or more) onboard maritime vessels in navigation, that worker will most likely be protected under the Jones Act. Freelance divers benefited greatly from this holding because it shifted the focus away from a worker's connection to a particular vessel or fleet of vessels and toward the actual nature of the work being performed offshore. Most freelance divers do not work with just one specific vessel or fleet of vessels. Jones Act vs. LHWCA: What Are My Rights? Diving contractors and their insurance companies have worked long and hard arguing that commercial offshore divers are covered under the LHWCA, not the Jones Act. This has been done because the recovery amounts vary drastically between the two bodies of law. Under the Jones Act, if a diver is injured due to the negligence of his employer, that diver will be entitled to seek damages for: •· Medical expenses; •· Pain and suffering; •· Lost or damaged limbs; •· Permanent disfigurement; •· Mental anguish; •· Impairment and •· Loss of quality of life. In addition to the above damages, a diver under the Jones Act would be entitled to dollar-for-dollar compensation for lost earning capacity. For example, if a diver was injured severely enough to put an end to his offshore career, that diver would be entitled to seek the amount that he would have made had he continued working untilthe expected retirement age for divers. On the other hand, under the LHWCA, the same diver would be entitled to recover only his medical expenses and an amount consistent with the compensation schedule found in the Act. In essence, the injured diver would only be entitled to recover 66 and 2/3 % of his average weekly wage for a period not to exceed 6 years. As anyone can see, the Jones Act is much more favorable than the LHWCA when it comes to compensation. If you or a loved one has been injured offshore, contact the maritime trial lawyers at Fitts Zehl, LLP today for a free consultation. The experienced personal injury attorneys at FZ have earned more than $150 million dollars in verdicts and settlements for their clients over the past two years alone.
Commercial Diving: Risks and Dangers at Sea Commercial divers are essential to the oil and gas industry's operations in the Gulf of Mexico. Without qualified personnel to physically carry out complex tasks beneath the surface of the ocean, the entire American oil and gas industry would grind to a halt. Unfortunately, even though they are indispensable to the work of oil and gas producers, offshore divers still run the risk of being wronged by their employers following an on-the-job injury or illness. If you or someone you love has been injured in a commercial diving accident, contact the experienced Texas Jones Act lawyers at Fitts Zehl, LLP today for a free consultation. A commercial diver may qualify as a Jones Act seaman as long as he is assigned to, and contributes to the overall function of, a particular vessel or fleet of vessels in navigation. This would allow the diver to sue his employer for any negligence in connection with his injury. Further, if a diver is injured by faulty or defective breathing equipment, he may also have a claim against the manufacturer. Unfortunately, freelance divers who move from ship to ship may have a harder time establishing a connection to a particular vessel and, as such, may not qualify for seaman status under the Jones Act. Freelance divers will instead be covered by the less favorable Longshoreman and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA). Under the LHWCA, an injured non-seaman will receive compensation based upon a set schedule found within the Act. Each and every day, commercial divers face difficult, potentially life-threatening situations at sea. A few dangers to be aware of include: •· Negligence - When a diver is underwater, he relies on those around him for safety. The negligence of a captain, crew member or employer can easily place a diver's life in jeopardy. Without a well-trained, attentive support team, the diver is at the mercy of the ocean. •· Soft-Tissue Injuries - Although not as common today thanks to improvements in equipment and techniques, divers still run the risk of soft tissue injuries resulting from exposure to water pressure at depth. Excessive pressure can cause serious sinus or ear pain, leading to panic and even death in extreme cases. •· Decompression Sickness - Rapid changes in barometric pressure, caused by ascending or descending too quickly, can cause the formation of painful bubbles within a diver's body. This condition, known as "the bends", is potentially life-threatening and treatment usually requires the use of a decompression chamber. •· Skin Irritation - The ocean is home to a variety of marine life, both flora and fauna, that can be dangerous to divers. Even worse are the man-made hazards that may be present in the water including benzene and other caustic chemicals associated with oil and gas production. •· Hypothermia - Exposure to frigid ocean temperatures can cause hypothermia in a matter of moments if a diver is not properly protected. In an effort to promote safety, every single person involved in a diving project, from the diver to the vessel operator, must comply with the Diving at Work Regulations (1997). These regulations are not hard and fast rules. Instead, these regulations simply require the employer to risk assess each individual's role in any dive project so that the proper precautions may be taken to ensure safety. Any company that commissions a dive project has a duty to ensure that the diving contractor is certified, as well as competent, to perform the required tasks. The company is also responsible for locating, identifying and informing the divers of any potentially dangerous obstacles, contaminated water or other hazards that may pose a problem. In the event of an emergency, the company is required to provide support in order to minimize the risk to life. The diving contractor can ensure group safety by carefully preparing the dive plan and effectively communicating it to the other members of the project. Also, by inspecting any and all equipment to be used in the dive, the diving contractor can reduce the chances of a catastrophic equipment failure while submerged. Thorough record-keeping will also help by indicating what exactly has and has not been done in preparing for a dive. It is important that each member of the dive project keep his or her own written records of what takes place for future reference. The Jones Act trial lawyers at Fitts Zehl, LLP have the knowledge and experience necessary to represent you. We handle clients from throughout the Gulf Coast region including Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Florida. Contact us today for a free case evaluation.
Be Aware of Your Rights As a Seaman Seamen have numerous legal rights when they are injured. Unfortunately, most seamen lack the necessary knowledge of these rights and, as a result, fail to properly enforce them. Without knowledge of these rights, seamen often end up receiving less than they deserve in the way of medical care and financial support. Vessel owners, counting on this lack of Jones Act knowledge, often abandon seamen during their time of need knowing that most will just take it, without even realizing there is an available legal remedy. It is extremely important that seamen educate themselves regarding at least basic Jones Act law in order to avoid being taken for a ride. Don't forget, many Jones Act attorneys, like the attorneys at Fitts Zehl, will represent clients on a contingency basis. This means that the client will only have to pay a percentage of his award after his case has been successfully handled. If, for any reason, your claim fails, you pay nothing. In the event of an accident, a seaman is generally entitled to specific protections under federal law. These usually include maintenance (food and shelter), cure (medical care and treatment), lost wages and, if the vessel owner's negligence was a factor, lost future wages stemming from the injury. When an accident does occur, there are some important things that should be done to bolster your claim under the Jones Act. First, you should immediately report the accident to your supervisor. Make sure that your supervisor properly records the incident in the appropriate place. Second, officially request medical attention and be sure to note the names of the doctors and nurses that treat you. Remember, you DO NOT have to see a company doctor. These company doctors are employed by your boss and are not on your side. Third, be sure to ask any witnesses to your accident for their full names and contact information. Fourth, take photos of the accident site and of any other conditions present onboard that contributed to your injury. Lastly, make sure not to sign anything until you have spoken with an experienced Jones Act lawyer. This is extremely important because many unscrupulous vessel owners will try to get you to either sign away your rights or damage your case in some way. If your injury does not allow you to work, stop working immediately! Any more work could further aggravate the injury leading to even bigger problems in the future. Instead, immediately inform your employer of the situation and request financial assistance (maintenance and cure) to cover living expenses and treatment. Additionally, be careful if your employer is trying to take you off the ship before you are able to be safely moved. Do not allow yourself to be moved unless you have been cleared by a doctor to return to shore. Be sure to abide by any travel or activity restrictions suggested by the doctor. This could be very important in helping you to recover properly. Any further injury or damage that results from your activity may not be recoverable. You have a duty to mitigate your own injury which essentially means you must take care not to make any injury worse than it already is. Once again, it is extremely important that seamen take the time to educate themselves about their rights and options under the Jones Act following an injury. By doing so, maritime workers can vastly improve their chances of recovering damages. Contact the experienced Texas Jones Act lawyers of Fitts Zehl, LLP at (800) 993-4887 or by email at rzehl@gulfcoastmaritimelawyer.com. We represent clients from cities throughout the gulf coast region including: New Orleans, Port Fourchon, Houma and Tibideaux.
Punitive Damages for Failure to Provide Maintenance and Cure: Atlantic Sounding v. Townsend Maritime defense lawyers and their clients have known for many years that it is not a wise decision to withhold maintenance and cure payments when an employee is injured offshore. On June 25, 2009, the United States Supreme Court, in the case of Atlantic Sounding Co., Inc. et al. v. Townsend, reaffirmed this concept in a 5-4 decision stating that where a vessel owner has shown a "willful and wanton" disregard in the payment of maintenance and cure, punitive damages are available to the injured plaintiff. Following an offshore injury, maritime employers are generally obligated to provide maintenance and cure to injured seamen until they are deemed to have reached maximum medical improvement. Failure to do so can indicate a lack of good faith and can often result in punishment by the trial court. The foundation for such a punishment of shipowners for wrongful denial of maintenance and cure lies in the 1962 United States Supreme Court case of Vaughan v. Atkinson. In Vaughan, the injured seaman was awarded attorney's fees because the vessel owner acted in a "willful"and "callous" manner in its denial of maintenance and cure. Following this decision, many lower courts began to hold that punitive damages were also available in these types of cases. The recent holding in Atlantic Sounding is important because it settles the long-standing question of whether or not the Jones Act or any subsequent case law applies to alter the long-standing common law and general maritime law tradition of allowing the recovery of punitive damages. In Atlantic Sounding, the defendant argued that the Jones Act's broad prohibition of punitive damage awards should be applied in defining the general maritime law as it pertains to maintenance and cure. This argument was bolstered by the 1990 United States Supreme Court case of Miles v. Apex Marine in which the types of damages available in a wrongful death case under general maritime law were limited by the court, utilizing the Congressional restraints on damages found in the Jones Act and the Death on the High Seas Act. The Court, however, chose not to follow the Miles case and held instead that the Jones Act's punitive damage prohibition does not apply. In the opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas cited numerous punitive damage awards given under the common law and general maritime law upon which the Jones Act of 1920 had no effect. As such, Justice Thomas further explained that the Jones Act does explicitly cover the negligence cause of action for personal injuries and death, but that the Act does not specifically apply to maintenance and cure and thus should not be utilized to preclude punitive damages in such a case. Essentially, because punitive damages have long been an accepted remedy under general maritime law, and because neither Miles v. Apex Marine Corp nor the Jones Act effectively changed this understanding, punitive damages for the willful and wanton disregard of the maintenance and cure obligation will remain available under general maritime law. This opinion indicates the fact that a slight majority of the current Supreme Court feels that the interpretation of general maritime or common law rules need not be frustrated by Congressional statutes unless those statutes are found to specifically apply. However, in line with the recent United States Supreme Court decision in the Exxon Valdez case, it should be noted that any punitive damage award which exceeds the provable amount of compensatory damages will most likely be found excessive and will be reduced accordingly. If you or someone you love has been injured offshore, contact the experienced Texas Jones Act lawyers at Fitts Zehl, LLP for a free consultation by phone (713) 491-6064 or by email info@gulfcoastmaritimelawyer.com . We have the knowledge and experience necessary to recover for you the maximum amount allowable under law. The trial lawyers at Fitts Zehl, LLP have recovered over $100 million in settlements and verdicts over just the past two years. Contact us today, we look forward to assisting you with your claim.
When Ships Collide: Presumption of Fault When a moving vessel strikes a non-moving vessel, the moving vessel is presumed to be at fault. This occurrence, known as an allision, differs from a collision in that one of the vessels involved must be anchored or moored to a fixed position. This presumption can be rebutted but only if the moving vessel demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that the moving vessel acted with reasonable care, the stationary ship caused the allision or the contact was an unavoidable accident. According to maritime law, damages stemming from negligent piloting of the ship will result in the liability in personam of both the vessel's owner and operator. From bad weather to rough seas, offshore workers face a large number of naturally occurring dangers every day. The negligent operation of a vessel is an unacceptable hazard to add to those ever-present dangers. The only way to deter this kind of activity is to hold the offenders accountable. In case of an injury resulting from an allision, contact the experienced Texas Jones Act attorneys at the law firm of Fitts Zehl by phone at (713) 491-6064 or email info@gulfcoastmaritimelawyer.com. Our aggressive legal team will fight hard to earn you every dollar that you have coming. Contact us today.
Barratry-What You Need to Know The dangers of working at sea are numerous. Be it inclement weather, the negligence of a crewmember or the unseaworthiness of the vessel itself, there is no shortage of things that can go wrong. Unfortunately, there is another type of danger that offshore workers need to be aware of and that is the danger of barratry. Barratry is defined as misconduct on the part of the ship’s crew or its captain that results in damages to the vessel or its cargo. This can include stealing the ship itself or any part of its cargo, scuttling the ship and even deserting the ship. In addition, any crewmember injuries stemming from a shipmaster’s act of barratry may be pursued under the Jones Act. Remember, the Jones Act exists to help you. It is in place in order to provide a remedy to any seaman injured due to the negligence of his employer or co-workers, regardless of fault. If you or someone you know has been the victim of barratry, contact the experienced Texas and Louisiana Jones Act attorneys by phone (713) 491-6064 or email info@gulfcoastmaritimelawyer.com. We will not rest until you are fully compensated for your losses.
Jones Act-Proving Negligence Following an offshore injury, it becomes necessary to establish employer negligence in order to recover under the Jones Act. The burden of proving negligence rests squarely on the plaintiff. Fortunately, in Jones Act cases, only a small amount of evidence is necessary to uphold a finding of negligence under the given facts. Additionally, in Jones Act cases, the employer may not utilize any common law defenses and for all intents and purposes the determination rests solely upon whether or not employer negligence played even the slightest role in the incident that is the basis of the suit. The burden of the seaman is considered met, and the obligation of the employer to pay damages manifests, when there is the slightest proof, even if it is entirely circumstantial, to persuade the jury that the employer was in any way negligent. The theory of assumed risk, where the Plaintiff knowingly undertakes a dangerous duty, may not be relied upon as a defense in an action under the Jones Act. In addition, contributory negligence, the idea that the Plaintiff contributed to his own injury, does not operate as a defense to a suit under the act. Instead, it may only serve as a factor to be considered by the jury in reducing the amount of damages that will be recoverable. However, as is illustrated by the case of Diamond Offshore Management Co. v. Guidry, 171 S.W.3d 840 (Tex. 2005), there are certain circumstances under which you would not be able to recover for your injuries. In this case, a seaman acted inappropriately while on shore leave and became intoxicated. Because of his course of conduct prior to being injured he was deemed to be outside the scope of his employment and thus precluded from collecting damages under the Act. If you or someone you know has been injured offshore contact the experienced Texas and Louisiana Jones Act attorneys at Fitts Zehl. We have the resources and expertise necessary to get you the money you deserve. Contact us today by phone (713) 491-6064 or email info@gulfcoastmaritimelawyer.com.
Jones Act-What if I Contributed to my Injury? In the aftermath of an accident, many unsettling thoughts can race through an injured seaman's mind. How did this happen? What if the accident was partially my fault? How will I recover money for my damages? According to the doctrine of contributory fault, when a defendant alleges that a seaman contributed to his own injury, the burden of proof rests on that defendant. A seaman only has a slight duty to exercise care in protecting himself while working. This means that the following demonstrations against an injured seaman are insufficient to prove contributory fault: •· Plaintiff knowingly accepted working under dangerous conditions; •· Plaintiff followed his employer's instructions, express or implied, that he perform a dangerous job, or work in a dangerous place or under unsafe conditions; •· Plaintiff carried out orders that resulted in his injury even though he recognized the dangers involved. As you can see, it takes more than just a simple showing of a seaman's willingness to please his boss in order to prove contributory fault. The defendant must actually prove that the plaintiff was injured due to his own decisions. For example, plaintiff may be found to be contributorily negligent if he chose to perform a work-related task in a manner that exposed him to the risk of serious injury even though a safer alternative was reasonably available to him. If you or someone you know has been injured offshore, contact the experienced Texas Jones Act attorneys at Fitts Zehl by phone (713) 491-6064 or email info@gulfcoastmaritimelawyer.com. We have the knowledge and expertise necessary to handle your maritime injuryclaim. We will not rest until those responsible for your offshore injuries are held accountable. We proudly represent Jones Act clients from throughout the Gulf Coast region including: Houston, Galveston, New Orleans and Houma.
Will the Jones Act Apply if...? Throughout the years, Fitts Zehl has successfully handled numerous maritime injury cases. Potential clients often call the office wondering whether or not they qualify to sue under the Jones Act. As I’ve stated in previous articles on this blog, the Jones Act is very specific in its requirements. Typically, one must be a seaman, working on a vessel and contributing toward its overall mission in order to recover under the Jones Act. However, as technology has changed, the Jones Act has been applied to maritime workers that are not traditional seamen, but are instead responsible for the operation of special-purpose equipment. The use of special-purpose equipment, like dredges and drilling platforms, has resulted in the emergence of two issues seeking to reconcile the disparity. First, whether the special-purpose equipment can be considered a “vessel” such that a worker associated with its use and operation could properly seek recovery under the Jones Act if they were otherwise qualified as a “seaman” or “member of the crew”. Second, whether the maritime laborer, under the facts of the individual case, was a “seaman” or “member of the crew” to whom the Jones Act was applicable. As to the first issue, courts have generally held that dredges are Jones Act vessels in navigation for purposes of recovery by injured seamen or crew members except where the dredges were operating on private land or were being used incidental to improvements on the land rather than in aid of commerce and navigation. The courts' treatment of drilling equipment and drilling rigs has depended upon the type of equipment involved. Drilling equipment consisting of fixed or stationary platforms has been uniformly held not to be vessels within the meaning of the Jones Act , while drilling rigs of the "jack-up" type, supported on retractable, hydraulically operated legs and of the "submersible barge" or "floating derrick" type, which are usually floated to a drilling site, have generally been found to qualify as Jones Act vessels, except where such rigs were only partially constructed and not in operation (92 A.L.R. Fed. 733). If you or a loved has been injured offshore, contact the Jones Act lawyers at Fitts Zehl today. We have the experience necessary to recover for you. Contact us by phone (713) 491-6064 or email info@gulfcoastmaritimelawyer.com.
The Jones Act-Protecting the Rights of Seamen
Under the Jones Act, seamen are considered wards of the admiralty court. This favored standing means that those individuals who meet the requirements and qualify as seamen injured in the service of their vessel are entitled to substantial benefits under the Act. The Jones Act and general maritime law provide maintenance and cure to any injured seaman. In addition, injured seamen can bring actions for negligence and/or unseaworthiness against the vessel owner, their employer or a responsible third party. Under the Jones Act, both the causation and negligence standards are relaxed. Essentially, an unseaworthy vessel that causes an injury results in almost strict liability for the vessel owner. Navigating the complexities of the Jones Act can be very difficult for even a seasoned attorney. Don’t trust your case to just anyone; contact the experienced Jones Act attorneys at the Fitts Zehl Law Firm by phone at (713) 491-6064 or by email at info@gulfcoastmaritimelawyer.com. We aggressively represent Jones Act injury clients from every corner of the Gulf Coast region including Port Aransas, Houston, New Orleans and Houma.
The Idea Behind the Implied Warranty of Seaworthiness
The implied warranty of seaworthiness exists to protect seamen from potentially dangerous conditions present onboard a vessel that are beyond their control. This doctrine arises out of the ship itself and must be applied against the owner of that particular vessel. The implied warranty of seaworthiness allows an injured seaman to hold his employer liable for any dangerous conditions onboard a vessel that contributed to an injury. These dangerous conditions, like missing safety gear, faulty equipment or slippery deck surfaces, can be enough to have a vessel declared unseaworthy. Upon a finding of unseaworthiness, an injured seaman may recover under the Jones Act for the negligence of the vessel owner in maintaining the ship. In addition, the vessel owner is required to provide maintenance and cure for any injured seaman until that individual reaches maximum medical improvement. This means that a vessel owner is obligated, regardless of fault, to cover an injured seaman’s medical and living expenses until that individual reaches the point that he will no longer medically improve. A word of caution is in order, however, to those who may think that maintenance and cure is going to cover everything. The statutory amounts for maintenance and cure are extremely low and will barely support a man and his family, if at all, during recovery. If you or a loved one has been injured offshore contact the experienced Jones Act attorneys at the Fitts Zehl Law Firm by phone at (713) 491-6064 or email at info@gulfcoastmaritimelawyer.com. We zealously represent injured seamen from throughout the Gulf Coast region including: Houma, Houston, Corpus Christi and New Orleans.
Jones Act-Who Exactly Should I Sue? The decision regarding whom to sue is not always an easy one. While it is most often the true owner of a ship that is the proper party to sue, other individuals can potentially be sued under ownership pro hac vice. Essentially, this means a person with sufficient control of the vessel may be found to have the same liability as a true owner. For example, a bareboat charterer, one who contractually accepts exclusive possession, command and control of a vessel for a set period of time, could be held liable as an owner pro hac vice. When a vessel is operated by one other than the owner, a fact question may arise regarding whether the seaman was actually employed by the owner or operator. This is to be determined by the jury analyzing the specific facts of each case. If you or someone you know has been injured offshore contact the experienced Jones Act lawyers at the Fitts Zehl Law Firm by phone at (713) 491-6064 or by email at gulfcoastmaritimelawyer.com. Our trial attorneys have years of experience representing Jones Act clients throughout the Gulf Coast region including: Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi and Florida. |
Topics
Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA) Recent UpdatesJuly 14, 2010 May 17, 2010 May 14, 2010 April 27, 2010 April 23, 2010 Archives
May, 2010 Web ResourcesHouston Jones Act Attorney |
Galleria Tower I
2700 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 1120
Houston, TX 77056-5648
866-586-8988 (Toll Free)
713-583-1492 (fax)
Contact a Jones-Act/Offshore Injury Lawyer today
Texas Jones Act Attorney
2700 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 1120
Houston, TX 77056-5648
866-586-8988 (Toll Free)
713-583-1492 (fax)
Contact a Jones-Act/Offshore Injury Lawyer today
Texas Jones Act Attorney
The Jones Act
The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation.
Principal office located in Houston, Texas. Ryan Zehl is the attorney responsible for the content of this site.