Maritime Injury Lawyer & Attorney : Vujasinovic & Beckcom : Jones Act : Serving Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi

A barge worker's widow recently filed a lawsuit against a barge company and a contracting company after her husband was killed. 

In the lawsuit, the widow claims that her deceased husband died when he slipped and fell on an icy barge.  The barge was empty.  The lawsuit claims that the barge company failed to provide the worker with a safe place to work.

About this case and maritime wrongful death claims

Under maritime law, the direct descendents of deceased workers may be able to bring claims for wrongful death.  Under most claims, the survivors must prove that the company did something "negligent" to cause the death or that the vessel was "unseaworthy" and that caused the subject accident or death.  The damages available differ depending on a lot of factors, but if the survivors were financially dependent on the deceased worker, they generally can collect damages for the loss of financial support.

The negligence standards differ depending on whether the case is a Jones Act case, a Longshore and Harbor Worker's Compensation Act case, a General Maritime Law case, or some other case.

Most of the time, only an experienced maritime and Jones Act lawyer will be able to tell you what law you can file under and what claims you can bring. 

Most important, don't trust the insurance company to tell you your rights.  Hire your own independent lawyer to advise you.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A barge worker who was working on a Teco Barge Line vessel on the Mississippi River has filed a Jones Act case against his employer for his injuries.

According to the lawsuit, the worker suffered serious and permanent hip injuries in March 2006.  He claims that the company failed to provide him with safe equipment, proper assistance, and competent supervision.  The worker claims damages for lost wages, human damages like pain and suffereing, and medical expenses.

Comment from Texas Jones Act and Maritime Lawyer Brian Beckcom:

If you are a "seaman" as that term is defined in the Jones Act, your employer is REQUIRED to pay your medical bills until you reach "maximum medical improvement" and also is REQUIRED to pay your "maintenance," which is a daily monetary amount that is supposed to provide for your living and lodging and food expenses while you recuperate from your injuries.

If you are an offshore worker who is a Jones Act "seaman," and your employer is NOT paying your medical bills or maintenance, they are not following the law. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Before the Death on the High Seas Act, U.S. Courts did not provide any remedy for wrongful death occuring on the high seas under General Maritime Law. 

Realizing how unfair this was, Congress passed the Death on the High Seas Act (DOSHA).  DOSHA applies to seafarers and passengers.  It provides a statutory wrongful death action and provides remedies for the personal representative of the decedent.

The U.S. Supereme Court, in a series of complex opinions, has held essentially that if the DOSHA controls, the courts were not free to supplement DOSHA's damages with common law damages.  And the Court extended those holdings to Jones Act seaman's death cases, holding that the parents of a deceased Jones Act seaman could not recover loss of society damages because the Jones Act has been interpreted as allowing only pecuniary losses.  (See Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U.S. 19 (1990).

So in cases where DOSHA applies, wrongful death damages are limited to "pecuniary losses" suffered by surviving family members (although in Jones Act cases, the deceased seaman's personal injury claim survives to his estate).

Also, state wrongful death laws cannot supplement or provide more damages when DOSHA applies.  (See Offshore Logistics, Inc. v. Tallentire, 477 U.S. 207 (1986).

So, what damages are recoverable under DOSHA?

DOSHA allows for "loss of support" damages.  That means survivors can recover the financial contributions the deceased would have made had he (or she) lived.

To recover loss of support, the family must show some sort of dependence or expectation of support. 

The total amount of support is not the decedent's future income.  You have to take out the portions of the future income the decedent would have consumed himself (or herself), reduce the totals to present value, and take out taxes.

Spouses are generally able to get loss of financial support over the decedent's work life.  Children can get support to the age of majority but only in special exceptions can children recover support damages after they reach majority.  For instance, in some cases, children may be able to recover for the cost of a college education.

Loss of inheritence may also be a legitimate recovery under DOSHA.

Loss of services (for example, services around the house like lawn care and maintenance of family vehicles) may be another item of recovery.  But to recover these damages, one must put on evidence of the reasonable value of these services.

Loss of nuture and guidance a parent would give to their children is also a legitimate pecuniary loss under DOSHA. 

Finally, funeral expenses are a legitimate pecuniary loss under DOSHA.

Spouses are generally able to get loss of financial support over the decedent's work life.  Children can get support to the age of majority but only in special exceptions can children recover support damages after they reach majority.  For instance, in some cases, children may be able to recover for the cost of a college education.

Loss of inheritence may also be a legitimate recovery under DOSHA.

Loss of services (for example, services around the house like lawn care and maintenance of family vehicles) may be another item of recovery.  But to recover these damages, one must put on evidence of the reasonable value of these services.

Loss of nuture and guidance a parent would give to their children is also a legitimate pecuniary loss under DOSHA. 

Finally, funeral expenses are a legitimate pecuniary loss under DOSHA.


For more information about the Jones Act or General Maritime Law, please contact Brian Beckcom at 713.224.7800, or toll free at 877.724.7800, or visit one of the firm's websites:

www.vbattorneys.com
www.themaritimelawyer.com
www.maritimeaccidentattorney.com

***************

About the firm

Vujasinovic & Beckcom, P.L.L.C. is a firm of board certified personal injury trial lawyers who handle serious injury and death cases, as well as business and insurance cases, on a contingency fee basis.  The firm has a substantial docket of Jones Act and maritime injury cases.

***************

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Jones Act Cases in Texas State Court After HB 1602

Brian Beckcom
Vujasinovic & Beckcom, L.L.P.
1001 Texas Avenue, Suite 1020
Houston, Texas 77002
(713) 224-7800
Brian@vbattorneys.com
www.vbattorneys.com

I.    Introduction

    On May 24, 2007, a sea change occurred in Texas state court Jones Act cases.  On that day, Governor Rick Perry signed HB 1602.   HB 1602 dramatically alters the special venue statute that applies to Texas Jones Act seamen. 

    Before HB 1602, Jones Act seamen and FELA railroad workers who lived in Texas when they were injured were allowed to file their FELA or Jones Act lawsuits in the county where they “resided” when they were injured.   The advantages for injured seamen and railroad workers were many, including local juries, local doctors, the ability to stay close the their family during trial, and the many other advantages inherent in local venues.

     HB 1602 modifies the venue options for Jones Act seamen and eliminates the home county option is some cases.  Before filing a Jones Act personal injury lawsuit, the prudent practitioner will be well advised to study HB 1602 and consider all the various venue options before filing a Jones Act lawsuit.  This paper summarizes and analyzes the changes HB 1602 brings to Jones Act cases in Texas state courts. 

A.    HB 1602 - Background

    The impetus behind HB 1602 was a perceived increase in Jones Act filings in four South Texas counties against dredging companies, in particular two out-of-state dredge companies, Great Lakes and Weeks Marine.  The dredge companies, with the backing of the anti-civil justice group Texans for Lawsuit Reform, attempted at first to eliminate the home county as a venue option for all Texas-based Jones Act seamen and FELA railroad workers.  The original version of the bill would have forced the vast majority of Texas-resident Jones Act seamen and FELA railroad workers to file suit in their employers’ home county.

    Recognizing the unfairness of the original bill, HB 1602 represents a compromise reached after many months of negotiation.  HB 1602 makes Harris County and Galveston County permissible venues for some out-of-state Jones Act cases, regardless of where the plaintiff lived in when he or she was injured.  HB 1602 provides special venue protections for dredge companies.  It allows the dredge companies to hire workers from South Texas (and other Texas counties) but prevents the dredge companies from being sued in those counties. 

    Finally, the venue option for FELA railroad workers was left untouched.

II.  HB 1602 Analysis

A.    FELA railroad workers

    Before HB 1602, FELA railroad workers and Jones Act seaman were treated the same for venue purposes.  The precursor to HB 1602 would have treated FELA railroad workers and Jones Act seamen the same by repealing CPRC 15.018 (the special venue statute) in its entirety.  The modified final version, HB 1602, carves out FELA railroad workers and separates them from Jones Act seamen.  As a result, FELA workers can still file in their home county, as well as the county where the incident occurred or the county where the defendant maintains its principal place of business in Texas.

    In summary, FELA railroad workers are unaffected by the modified, passed version of HB 1602.

B.    Jones Act – Non-dredge workers

    HB 1602 applies only to lawsuits filed under the Jones Act.  It contains a general venue rule then engrafts special venue rules for certain kinds of Jones Act cases, based on the type of work being performed by the injured employee or the locale of the injury.

    (i)    HB 1602 – General Venue Provision for Jones Act   cases  
  
     Under the general venue provisions of HB 1602, injured Jones Act seamen have two venue options from which to choose:
   
    (1) the county where the defendant’s principal office is located in the state;     or
   
    (2) the county where the plaintiff resided at the time the cause of action accrued.
   
    Under the general Jones Act venue statute, for example, an offshore oil rig worker who qualifies as a Jones Act seaman, injured in the Gulf of Mexico, can file in his home county or in the defendant’s home county in Texas.  A sailor injured on the high seas can also still file in his home county, or in the defendant’s home county if the defendant maintains a principal office in Texas.
   
    (ii)    Jones Act – Texas-based inland injuries and dredge worker injuries
   
    The Jones Act venue options are different for inland injuries, onshore injuries, or dredge worker injuries in Texas.  If all or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in Texas inland waters, onshore in Texas, or during the course of an “erosion response project in Texas,” there are two venue options:
   
    (1)    file in the county in which all or a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred; or
   
    (2)    file in the defendant’s principal office in the state.

    As a result of this first exception, a dredge worker injured in the Port of Houston must file in Harris County or in the county where the employer’s principal office in Texas is located.  A Jones Act seaman injured in transit to his job can file in the county where he was injured, or in the county where the employer’s principal office in Texas is located.
 
    (iii)    Jones Act – Out-of-state inland injuries and dredge  worker injuries occurring outside of Texas
   
    There is yet another exception for injuries occurring inland outside of Texas, shore-based injuries occuring outside of Texas, or dredging-type injuries in “Gulf Coast” states.
   
    If the injury occurs in any inland waters anywhere other than Texas, or onshore or during an erosion response project in a “Gulf Coast state,” then the injured Jones Act seamen has four venue options:
   
    (1)    the defendant’s principal office in the state if such office is in a  “coastal county”;
   
    (2)    Harris County (Houston) if the plaintiff lived anywhere other than Galveston when the cause of action accrued;
   
    (3)    Galveston unless the plaintiff lived in Harris County; or
   
    (4)    if the defendant does not have a principal office in a Texas coastal county, then where the plaintiff lived when the cause of action accrued.

    “Gulf Coast” states are defined as Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida. A “Coastal county” is defined as a county having a U.S. Customs port through which waterborne freight is transported.  “Coastal erosion project” and “erosion response project” are also defined.  Basically, erosion projects are dredging projects.

    As a result of this exception, a Dallas-based Texas resident injured on the Mississippi river could file in Harris or Galveston county, in the employer’s home county in Texas if one exists along the coast, or if not, in Dallas.  A Galveston-based Texas resident under the same facts loses the Harris County option.  Houston-based Texas residents lose the Galveston option.

C.    HB 1602 – Practical effects

    In addition to adding to the complexity of the venue analysis in Jones Act cases, perhaps the most dramatic change resulting from HB 1602 is the likely increase in Jones Act filings in Harris and Galveston state courts.

    Both Harris and Galveston counties are now viable venues for out-of-state injuries that occur in inland waters or ashore or during Gulf Coast dredging projects.  Formerly, a worker injured outside of Texas under these circumstances could file in their home county.  That option has been eliminated. 

    As a natural result of the changes in Jones Act venue options, expect to see increased Jones Act filings in Harris and Galveston state courts.  

    The other significant effect of HB 1602 is to Jones Act seamen injured in Texas waterways or doing dredging work in Texas.  Essentially, workers injured in Texas waterways or on a Texas dredging project, regardless of where they lived when injured, will lose the option of filing suit where they lived when injured.

    For example, a dredge worker injured while performing dredging work in the Port of Houston who lived in El Paso when he was injured will be required to file his suit in Harris County or where the dredging company has its principal office in Texas (assuming the company has a principal office in Texas). 

    As a practical matter, this will force some dredge workers to travel long distances for their lawsuit and will increase the costs of litigation to both the employee and employer.
     
    For more on this and other Jones Act and maritime law topics, please review this website or visit the firm's main website at www.vbattorneys.com.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks