Article by Eldon E. Fallon
Maritime law currently affords various remedies for personal injury or death sustained by a seaman while in the course of his employment. These remedies are, for the most part, more advantageous to the damaged party than the remedies available when nonseamen maritime employees or land-based employees are injured or killed while pursuing their employment.
Prior to 1920, a seaman's remedies for damages resulting from injuries were non-statutory. A seaman who became injured or ill while in the course of employment was entitled to recover unearned wages until the end of the voyage, and the cost of food, lodging and medical expenses during the period of convalescence. If the injury was due to the unseaworthiness of the vessel, the seaman was allowed to seek "indemnity" from the vessel owner. This cause of action for unseaworthiness developed into a species of strict liability. Furthermore, the concept expanded, first to include the vessel's equipment or appurtenance, then to encompass a third party's equipment brought aboard for the purpose of moving cargo, and finally to include crew members themselves.
In 1920, Congress passed the Jones Act which gave to seamen and their survivors a cause of action against the seaman's employer for personal injuries or death caused by the negligence of the employer or his agent. The act did not preempt the causes of action for maintenance and cure, and for damages caused by unseaworthiness. Instead, the Jones Act augmented these remedies.
Under the Jones Act, the claimant has the right to a trial by jury, and potential recovery of damages without any statutory maximum. The Act's causation requirement has been liberally construed; even the slightest negligence is sufficient to impose liability. Furthermore, contributory negligence will not thwart recovery, but only mitigate damages.
From the earliest days of Jones Act litigation, the courts have assumed without discussion that the determination of whether the plaintiff was a seaman controlled not only his right to sue under the Jones Act but also his right to recover maintenance and cure and indemnity for unseaworthiness under the general maritime law. Because of the plethora of favorable remedies applicable to seamen, maritime employees who were not traditionally considered seamen sought seaman status. The Jones Act itself does not define the type of worker who is considered to be a seaman; therefore, the determination of seaman status has been left to the courts.
About the Author
Eldon E. Fallon. J.D. 1962, Tulane Law School, LL.M. 1963, Yale Law School; Associate Professor of Law, Tulane University; Member of the Louisiana Bar.
Citation
55 Tul. L. Rev. 1010 (1981)