How to select the best lawyer for your Jones Act, Longshore, offshore, or maritime injury case

Posted on April 20, 2008 by BB

If you or a loved one are injured in an accident offshore, whether it be on a boat, a dredge, an offshore oil platform, a vessel, a freighter, a cruise ship, or any other type of water-borne method of transportation, you need to hire the best lawyer for your case.

Why is hiring the best lawyer, and just not any lawyer with a law degree, really important in offshore injury cases? 

Because the hidden secret is that most lawyers have never handled an offshore injury case and don't know the first thing about offshore injury law. 

So how do you find the best lawyer for your particular case?  And how do you even get an appointment to talk to the best offshore injury lawyers?

The best and most experienced attorneys who handle offshore injury or Jones Act cases will have people lining up at their door to hire them.  These lawyers will be very selective about the cases they accept and the people they represent.  It's often hard to get an appointment to talk with them directly.

If it's easy to get an immediate appointment with the lawyer you are thinking about hiring, ask yourself why?  Maybe that lawyer doesn't have much else to do?

Once you get an appointment with a lawyer you are thinking about hiring for an injury, accident, wrongful death, or business dispute case you should ask questions.  Lots of them.

Good lawyers will not be insulted by questions.  They will most likely encourage you to ask as many questions as you want.  Most of the best Jones Act and offshore injury lawyers will want you to educate yourself during the hiring process.

Any lawyer who seems to discourage your questions or doesn't answer them in a straightforward no-nonsense way should raise red flags.

After all, the best lawyers consider it their job to keep you informed and educated and comfortable during the entire process.

Questions to ask a lawyer you are thinking about hiring for an offshore injury case

1.  How long have you been in practice?

2.  Do you have any experience handling a case like mine?

3.  Can you give me a list of your past results or past cases?

4.  Have you  ever published any articles about cases like mine?

5.  Have you ever had a case against the same company that was negligent in my case?

6.  Will you actually work on my case?

7.  How much experience does your support staff have in these types of cases?

8.  Have you ever won a large verdict or settlement?

9.  Are you board-certified in any field?

10.  Do you carry malpractice insurance?

11.  Have you ever been disciplined or reprimanded by a bar association?

12.  What is my case worth?

13.  Have you ever represented large companies or insurance companies?

14.  Can I have a copy of my attorney-client contract to take home and study?

15.  Why do you believe you should handle my case and not some other lawyer?

This list does not include every possible good question.  It may depend on your case.  But this list will certainly cover a lot of important areas and get you started down the right road.

Any good offshore injury lawyer will be glad to answer all these questions and any other questions you have.  And they will be glad to answer them in a straightforward, honest, no-nonsense way!

If the lawyer is evasive or says he won't answer your questions until you hire him as your lawyer by signing papers, then you should probably just leave the appointment.  That lawyer is either not experienced enough for your case, is desperate for business, or has something to hide.

Have a good question you'd like to suggest? 

If you have other questions you'd like to suggest that are not on the list above, please submit your question to the comments section below.  We will print the most popular and most helpful question in a future post.

For more questions, visit the rest of the entires on this website or go to www.vbattorneys.com.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

What is a "Longshoreman" & What Are Their Legal Rights When Injured?

Posted on February 13, 2007 by BB

Workers who load and unload the ship's cargo and are employed by stevedoring companies, longshoremen or harbor worker unions, or who are employed by such companies other than the ship's owners are generally considered "longshoremen"  or "harbor workers."

Longshoremen are covered by the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA).  They are entitled to a form of federal workers' compensation benefits for on-the-job injuries or death.  Longshoremen are entitled to collect benefits if they were injured in the course of their employment regardless of fault.

Longshoremen are not entitled to bring Jones Act or General Maritime Law claims against their employer.  The U.S. Supreme Court has made it very clear that an injured worker cannot be a Longshoremen and a Jones Act seaman at the same time.  The two laws, and the money compensation they allow, are mutually exclusive.

Although a Longshoremen cannot sue his employer, he may be able to sue the shipowner for negligence.  Shipowners have a duty to ensure that the ship's equipment, tools, work spaces and other areas are safe from dangers.  Shipowners must warn longshoremen/stevedores of any dangerous conditions on their ships.  If the shipowner fails to warn a longshormen/stevedore of a dangerous condition and the longshoremen/stevedore is hurt as a result, the shipowner may be responsible for the longshoreman's damages.  See, for example, Scindia Steam Navigation Co. v. De Los Santos (1981) 451 US 156, 68 L.Ed 2d 1, 101S Ct 1614).

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Jones Act - What Is It?

Posted on February 11, 2007 by BB

Injured seamen and offshore workers often ask me to explain their possible remedies under the Jones Act and to explain the Jones Act to them. 

The Jones Act is really a pretty straightforward set of rules first passed by Congress is 1920 and known as The Merchant Marine Act of 1920.  The statute itself is short.  Although the statute is short and can be read in less than 5 minutes, like ship that's been in the water a long time, the Jones Act has a lot of barnacles in the form of Court opinions that interpret it's provision.

With that in mind, here's a simple explanation of the Jones Act.

The Jones Act requires, first, that U.S.-flagged vessels be built in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, and documented under the laws of the United States. Documented means "registered, enrolled, or licensed under the laws of the United States."  In addition, all officers and 75% of the crew must be U.S. citizens. Vessels that satisfy these requirements comprise the "Jones Act fleet".
The Jones Act restricts the carriage of goods between United States ports to United States flagged vessels.

Second, and more important to injured maritime workers, the Jones Act also allows injured sailors to obtain damages from their employers for the negligence of the shipowner, the captain, or fellow members of the crew.  It operates simply, by extending similar legislation already in place that allowed for recoveries by railroad workers and providing that this legislation also applies to sailors.

The language that gives injured seaman the right to recover damages for injuries suffered offshore is only one paragraph long:

"Any seaman who shall suffer personal injury in the course of his employment may, at his election, maintain an action for damages at law, with the right to trial by jury, and in such action all statutes of the United States modifying or extending the common-law right or remedy in cases of personal injury to railway employees shall apply. . . ."

An injured seamen has three legal remedies. The first is the right to "maintenance and cure," the second is under the Jones Act, and the third is under the doctrine of unseaworthiness. A simple analogy which, while not completely accurate, provides an easy way to distinguish between the three remedies is this: Maintenance (living expenses during recovery) and cure (medical care) is like workers' compensation. A shipowner is required to provide maintenance and cure regardless of whether or not it was negligent in causing the seaman's injuries. The Jones Act is essentially a negligence cause of action. If the shipowner isn't negligent, it has no liability to the seaman under the Jones Act. Unseaworthiness is like products liability law--if the ship or any of its appliances are defective, the seaman can sue the shipowner if he is injured due to the defect.

The Jones Act entitles injured sailors to recover past and future wage losses, medical care, and pain and suffering--elements of damages which are generally unavailable under maintenance and cure. Under maintenance and cure the shipowner is only required to provide medical care until the seaman reaches maximum medical cure, after which the duty comes to an end.

The Jones Act should not be confused with the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, which is a Federal statute that defines the workers' compensation rights of dockside employees whose work affects shipping upon navigable waters. The Death on the High Seas Act governs remedies for the surviving kin of sailors who die on the job.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Injured Offshore? Here Are Five Helpful Tips For Navigating Your Legal Voyage

Posted on February 6, 2007 by BB

If you are someone you know is injured offshore or near a navigable body of water, there may be a legal claim for damages under the Jones Act, General Maritime Law, the Longshore & Harbor Worker's Compensation Act (LWCHA), or other state or federal laws.  However, the procedural and substantive law governing maritime legal claims is very different from the law governing onshore injuries.

You need to be sure you don't run aground during your legal voyage.  Here are five helpful tips for workers with offshore injury claims.

1.  If you are considering hiring a lawyer, the very first thing you should do is ensure your lawyer has experience handling maritime injury or Jones Act claims.  Simply put, most lawyers don't handle these claims on a regular basis.  If you were having heart problems, you wouldn't seek help from a knee doctor, would you?  Of course not.  You'd find a heart doctor.  The same is true of lawyers.  If you have a maritime claim, you should talk to a maritime lawyer, not a tax lawyer or estate lawyer or other lawyer who doesn't regularly handle maritime injury claims.

2.  You need to know that the law governing maritime injury and Jones Act cases is entirely different than land-based claims.  The location of the worksite and the nature of the work being performed may have a substantial impact on the types of claims you can bring.  An experienced maritime lawyer should be able to tell you what laws govern your case.   Don't rely on your brother's uncle 's cousin who got in a truck wreck to tell you what your case is worth.  Jones Act and maritime injury claims are simply different than other types of claims.

3.  If you are injured offshore, DO NOT assume that you'll be covered by worker's compensation insurance.  In fact, many offshore injuries are NOT covered by worker's compensation insurance.  Even though you may not get worker's compensation coverage, however, if you're a Jones Act seaman, or a Longshoreman, you may get medical bills paid and wage replacement under the Jones Act or the Longshore & Harbor Worker's Compensation Act.  Although different legal rules govern these claims, they are similar to worker's compensation statutes in some respects. 

4.  If you're injured offshore and are covered under the Jones Act, you will likely get more legal remedies than other injured workers.  For instance, you have a claim for maintenance and cure (see the post on maintenance and cure on this website), Jones Act "negligence," and unseaworthiness (see related posts below).  You may also have third-party negligence clams under General Maritime Law if someone other than your employer was at fault. 

5.  Although you should report your injury as soon as possible, it's generally NOT a good idea to give written or recorded statements to company agents or officials until you've obtained legal help.  The reason is because the company's agents or insurance representatives may try to trick you into saying something that hurts your case.  It is much easier to avoid this problem upfront than try to explain it later on during your legal proceedings.  The companies all have experienced lawyers advising them on their rights--you should too.

For more information about the Jones Act and maritime law, see the related posts in this website, below.  Or call 877-724-7800 for a free initial consultation.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The U.S. Supreme Court Decides Unanimously in Favor of Jones Act seaman

Posted on January 31, 2007 by BB

In a wonderful victory for Jones Act seaman and injured maritime workers generally, last year, the United States Supreme Court decide Stewart v. Dutra, a case involving whether an injured dredge worker was a Jones Act "seaman" and whether the dredge he was on was a "vessel" for Jones Act purposes.

The case is a must-read for all maritime attorneys and is recommended for Jones Act seaman and maritime workers generally.

The U.S. Supreme Court decided, essentially, that anything "practically capable" of moving across the water, whether it does so or not, is a "vessel" for Jones Act purposes.

You can find the case by clicking here.

I've also set forth some of the more important parts of the case below.


1.  The Jones Act was enacted in 1920 to remove a bar to negligence suits by seaman.  The Act itself does not define "seaman," but the general backdrop of maritime demonstrates that "seaman" was and is a term of art under general maritime law.  Unlike sea-based workers, land-based workers injured offshore are covered by the Longhsore & Harbor Worker's Compensation Act (the "LWHCA").  The LWHCA excludes from coverage the "master or member of the crew of any vessel."  The Jones Act and LWHCA work together--one provides coverage for "seaman," and the other for land-based worekrs.

2.  The LHWCA did not define “vessel” when enacted, but §§1 and 3 of the Revised Statutes of 1873 specified that, in any Act passed after February 25, 1871, “ ‘vessel’ includes every description of water-craft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water.” The LHWCA is such an Act. Section 3’s definition has remained virtually unchanged to the present and continues to supply the default definition of “vessel” throughout the U.S. Code. Section 3 merely codified the meaning “vessel” had acquired in general maritime law. In fact, prior to the passage of the Jones Act and the LHWCA, this Court and lower courts had treated dredges as vessels. By the time those Acts became law in the 1920’s, it was settled that §3 defined “vessel” for their purposes, and that a structure’s status as a vessel under §3 depended on whether the structure was an instrument of naval transportation. See Ellis v. United States, 206 U.S. 246, 259. Then as now, dredges served a waterborne transportation function: In performing their work they carried machinery, equipment, and a crew over water. This Court has continued to treat §3 as defining “vessel” in the LHWCA and to construe §3 consistently with general maritime law. Norton v. Warner Co., 321 U.S. 565. Pp. 6—10.

3. Previous cases made a sensible distinction between watercraft temporarily stationed in a particular location and those permanently anchored to shore or the ocean floor. A watercraft is not capable of being used for maritime transport in any meaningful sense if it has been permanently moored or otherwise rendered practically incapable of transportation or movement. By including special-purpose vessels like dredges, the act is broad, but other prerequisites to qualifying for seaman status under the Jones Act provide some limits.   For example, a worker seeking such status must prove that his duties contributed to the vessel’s function or mission and that his connection to the vessel was substantial in nature and duration.

4.  The First Circuit held that the Super Scoop is not a “vessel” because its primary purpose is not navigation or commerce and because it was not in actual transit at the time of Stewart’s injury. Neither prong of that test is consistent with §3’s text or general maritime law’s established meaning of “vessel.” Section 3 requires only that a watercraft be “used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water,” not that it be used primarily for that purpose. The Super Scoop was not only “capable of being used” to transport equipment and passengers over water–it was so used. Similarly, requiring a watercraft to be in motion to qualify as a vessel under §3 is the sort of “snapshot” test rejected in Chandris.    That a vessel must be “in navigation,” means not that a structure’s locomotion at any given moment matters, but that structures may lose their character as vessels if withdrawn from the water for an extended period. The “in navigation” requirement is thus relevant to whether a craft is “used, or capable of being used,” for naval transportation.    The inquiry whether a craft is “used, or capable of being used,” for maritime transportation may involve factual issues for a jury, but here no relevant facts were in dispute. Dutra conceded that the Super Scoop was only temporarily stationary while the scow was being repaired; it had not been taken out of service, permanently anchored, or otherwise rendered practically incapable of maritime transport. Finally, Dutra conceded that the Super Scoop is a “vessel” under §905(b), which imposes LHWCA liability on vessel owners for negligence to longshoremen.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,