THE JONES ACT REMEDY-A REVIEW OF RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AFFECTING SEAMEN'S ACTIONS-INLAND AND OFFSHORE By James A. George
Significant changes in the law affecting seamen's remedies have been wrought by recent decisions and it will be the objective of this paper to briefly discuss the effect of those decisions upon the Jones Act remedy. DECISIONS AFFECTING JONES ACT STATUS In 1903, in its landmark decision, The Osceola,' the United States Supreme Court held that a seaman could not recover from his employer for injuries caused by the negiigence of a fellow crewman. In 1920, Congress overruled the Supreme Court and passed the Jones Act, giving seamen a cause of action against their employers for the negligence of the vessel's officers and crew. The Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. 搂688, specifically incorporates the provisions of the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA),' which gives a right to railroad employees to recover from their employers for the negligence of a fellow servant. 1. What is a vessel? Offshore Co. v. RObison,' the oftcited 1959 decision of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals set the guidelines by which seaman's status is determined. In order to have the special status of "seaman" an employee must have a more or less permanent attachment to
his vessel, or perform SUbstantially all his duties aboard the vessel, and perform duties which aid the vessel's mission, or contribute to the function of the vessel or to its maintenance at sea or anchorage.' In addition, the worker must be employed aboard a vessel in navigation before he can be a seaman under the Robison test. A "vessel" has been defined as " ...every description of watercraft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water.'" A vessel for purposes of The Jones Act is not necessarily a vessel for other purposes, such as for purposes of an insurance contract.' The requirement that a vessel be "in navigation" effectively eliminates ships which are "mothballed",' or undergoing extensive reconstruction' from consideration as vessels in navigation. The Fifth Circuit, after consistently holding that a wide variety of submersible drilling rigs, oil storage facilities, and other devices' could be considered vessels in navigation, has apparently reversed its attitude on this question. In Blanchard v. Engine Gas Compression service,"the Fifth Circuit held that submerged barges, one of which had not been moved in twenty years, and which carried no navigation lights, equipment, or lifesaving gear, and which were not registered with the
EDITOR'S NOTE: This is the third and final article in the maritime law series prepared by James A. George. "Pleasure Boats, Swimmers and Water Skiers-Recreational Accidents on Navigable Inland Waters" and "A Brief Review of the Law Governing Maritime Wrongful Death Actions Occuring on Inland Waters" appeared in the October 1979 and April 1980 issues of The Arkansas Lawyer, respectively. These articles are "musts" in a proctor's law library. Mr. George of Baton Rouge is a noted trial lawyer and expert in maritime law matters. We thank him for the privilege of printing his articles in The Arkansas Lawyer.
172/Arkansas Lawyer/October 1980
Coast Guard, were not vessels within the meaning of the Jones Act. "Mere flotation on water" was not enough to constitute a vessel, in the Court's opinion. 11 The apparent trend begun by the Fifth Circuit in Blanchard toward a more restrictive interpretation of the term "vessel" continued in the case of Leonard v. Exxon," in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana had held that a floating construction platform moored to the bank of the Mississippi River near路 Baton Rouge was not a vessel. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that a floating device neither designed for navigation nor engaged in navigation at the time of the accident was, as a matter of law, not a vessel under the Jones Act. A vigorous dissenting opinion filed by Judge Godbold noted the apparent departure from previous rulings represented by the majority opinion. 2. Who are seamen? Offshore Co. v. Robison did not signal the end of the riddle "who are seamen?"-it was only the beginning. The Courts have been very liberal in extending the protection of the Jones Act to all classes of maritime workers employed aboard vessels. Two ex-