Landmark case simplifies Jones Act – somewhat

The Jones Act of 1920 was an act of Congress designed to protect the U.S. from the use of foreign ships in domestic transport, and to protect seaman from the “dangers of the sea” both inland and along the United States coast. One of the many stipulations of the Jones Act is that a seaman may hold the owner of a vessel liable for medical bills and additional compensation for pain and suffering. This is much different than the Longshoreman’s Act which severely limits the amount of compensation a land-based worker can receive from his or her employer.

In 1995, the Supreme Court handed down a decision in Chandris Inc. v. Latsis that would clarify the matter to a certain extent. The case involved a superintendent engineer working for Chandris, Inc. Often he would have to work and travel on any number of the company ships in the course of his work. During one voyage, an injury eventually caused him to lose most of his sight in one eye. He took his case to court under the Jones Act to receive compensation.

However the Supreme Court decided against the engineer, and developed a “two-prong” approach to deciding future Jones Act cases. First, the court said, seaman status could only be given to employees whose work directly relates to the ship or the accomplishment of its mission. Second, the employee must work on the ship (or an identifiable group of ships, for example an owner’s fleet of ships) for a “substantial” amount of time. Substantial was defined as 30% of a worker’s duties during employment, though the court stated that this was to be a “guideline” only – individual cases may be exempt from this.

Although the ruling in this case helps define the term “seaman,” it remains somewhat subjective. In this day and age of multiple roles in employment, land-based employees often work or travel to work on the water and are often subjected to the act’s reference to the dangers of the seas, whether they are directly involved with ship’s operations or not. However it is clear that the “30% guideline” will be used more as a rule than a guideline. In the case of the Chandris Inc. v. Latsis, the engineer lost his bid because he fell below the 30% mark and the court saw no reason to make his case an exemption.

If you have been injured at sea, you need proper legal advice before deciding to pursue a case under the Jones Act. Losing the case would severely limit your chances of getting compensation through other channels. Contact Jim S. Adler & Associates today for a free case review. We’ll help you determine the best course of action, and help you make sure your rights are protected.