Seaman Status - A Legal Test for Commercial Mariners (Jones Act Seamen)... Connection to a Vessel
Who Is a Jones Act Seaman... Connection to a Vessel
The legal test for "Connection with a Vessel" is not always so straightforward. This is shown by a recent decision involving a welder who was not a traditional member of a vessel crew. Back to Two-Part Test Jones Act Seaman
There are various laws that involve the rights of maritime workers. We sometimes tend to associate a particular law with a given setting. For instance, if the setting is a shipyard or cargo terminal, we look to the Longshore Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. For deep-water oil rigs, the Offshore Continental Shelf Lands Act comes to mind. For a seaman on a vessel, we think of the Jones Act.
But it’s often necessary to look at factors beyond mere physical setting. This was shown by a recent case in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that involved a welder on a jack-up drill rig. Here, the mere fact that the injury arose on a vessel did not automatically equate with Jones Act. The welder was injured after tripping on a pipe.
During this time, the rig was jacked up and stood adjacent to a pier. The welder worked day shifts and went home in the evenings. The actual facts were more complicated, as they involved time spent between two rigs, and those details are left out. The court here would look at whether the work he did was substantial in terms of its duration and nature.
The welder had sued under the Jones Act in state court. The employer argued that the welder was not a Jones Act seaman. The district court ruled that the welder was in fact not a seaman for the purposes of the Jones Act.
On appeal, the higher court looked to the legal test applied by the Supreme Court case Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis. In that case, (1) the employee’s duties “must contribute to the function of the vessel or to the accomplishment of its mission, and (2) the 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.”
But the court here looked at additional elements here: (1) Does the worker owe his allegiance to the vessel, rather than simply to a shoreside employer? (2) Is the work sea-based or involve seagoing activity? (3) Is the worker’s assignment to a vessel limited to performance of a discrete task after which the worker’s connection to the vessel ends, or (b) Does the worker’s assignment include sailing with the vessel from port to port or location to location?
The welder did pass the duration test here. He had spent about 90% of his time on the rig. But in applying the additional elements, his work was not deemed to be seagoing activity. The lesson here is that there can be more than one way to look at whether one satisfies the tests for a given maritime law, and that test can sometimes hinge on case law that constantly evolves.
Ref: Sanchez v. Smart Fabricators of Texas, L.L.C., Appeal from the United States United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, No. 19-20506, USDC No. 4:19-CV-00110
But it’s often necessary to look at factors beyond mere physical setting. This was shown by a recent case in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that involved a welder on a jack-up drill rig. Here, the mere fact that the injury arose on a vessel did not automatically equate with Jones Act. The welder was injured after tripping on a pipe.
During this time, the rig was jacked up and stood adjacent to a pier. The welder worked day shifts and went home in the evenings. The actual facts were more complicated, as they involved time spent between two rigs, and those details are left out. The court here would look at whether the work he did was substantial in terms of its duration and nature.
The welder had sued under the Jones Act in state court. The employer argued that the welder was not a Jones Act seaman. The district court ruled that the welder was in fact not a seaman for the purposes of the Jones Act.
On appeal, the higher court looked to the legal test applied by the Supreme Court case Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis. In that case, (1) the employee’s duties “must contribute to the function of the vessel or to the accomplishment of its mission, and (2) the 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.”
But the court here looked at additional elements here: (1) Does the worker owe his allegiance to the vessel, rather than simply to a shoreside employer? (2) Is the work sea-based or involve seagoing activity? (3) Is the worker’s assignment to a vessel limited to performance of a discrete task after which the worker’s connection to the vessel ends, or (b) Does the worker’s assignment include sailing with the vessel from port to port or location to location?
The welder did pass the duration test here. He had spent about 90% of his time on the rig. But in applying the additional elements, his work was not deemed to be seagoing activity. The lesson here is that there can be more than one way to look at whether one satisfies the tests for a given maritime law, and that test can sometimes hinge on case law that constantly evolves.
Ref: Sanchez v. Smart Fabricators of Texas, L.L.C., Appeal from the United States United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, No. 19-20506, USDC No. 4:19-CV-00110