How to Indentify a Jones Act Seaman
By Jeffrey S. The maritime law community is awaiting the next pronouncement by the U.S. Supreme Court pertaining to the definition of a Jones Act seaman. In February, the high court announced that it would review the decision of the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Stewart v. Dutra Construction Co., Inc. The definition of seaman has proven to be a nagging problem; this will be the fifth time since 1991 that the Justices have tackled some aspect of the question. Most injured maritime workers would prefer to pursue recovery as a "seaman". There are several reasons for this. First and foremost, the damages recoverable under the Jones Act are not limited to lost wages and benefits, but also include an important component for "pain and suffering".
Dredge is a Vessel for Purposes of LHWCA
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a dredge not currently in navigation is still a vessel for purposes of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA). In the instant case, a marine engineer was injured while performing repairs on a scow tied up to a dredge. The dredge was capable of only limited movement on its own, dragging itself along using anchors and cables. Otherwise, it had to be towed. The lower court held that, since the primary purpose of the dredge was not navigation or commerce, it was not a vessel and the marine engineer could not recover under the LHWCA. The Supreme Court held that the dredge was a vessel because it was a watercraft used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water. Stewart v. Dutra Construction Co., No.
