James Nader News

James P. Nader & Joseph A. The hazards of maritime work and the perils of the sea in which seamen are forced to work are all too familiar. Admiralty courts have always served as protector of the seamen's welfare. In fact, no other employee in our society has such powerful weapons in their arsenal for relief in response to a work related accident. However, passengers, invitees, and guests aboard a ship are not entitled to the protection of the warranty of seaworthiness. The doctrine of seaworthines's incorporation into maritime law occurred in 1903 with the U.S. Supreme Court case, The Osceloa. The Supreme Court held that ship owners owe a duty to seamen to provide a seaworthy vessel.

By James P. Nader & Joseph A. Collision law can be traced back to ancient Roman times and developed further during the industrial revolution in England. In more modern times there have been numerous efforts by the international community to establish a uniform set of guidelines and rules governing safety at sea. Some of the navigational rules which have developed include the use of light and sound signals, radar, speed regulations, lookouts and observance of standards of good seamanship. General customs of navigation are also an important consideration, but do not carry the weight of the rule of law. If a general and even widely accepted custom is contrary to the law it will not be enforced.

By James P. Nader, Esq. Joseph A. Poblick, Esq. It is common in today's litigious environment for businesses to attempt to limit their liability through contracts. Courts have struggled with the "boilerplate" language used in many contracts today. This is true even in the admiralty and maritime world. Although lawsuits involving maritime injuries generally must be filed within three years, passenger vessels such as ferries and cruise ships may stipulate a shorter time frame. Federal maritime law allows a passenger vessel to limit its liability to lawsuits which are filed within one year of the accident. Passenger vessels may stipulate time limitations for filing claims and commencing lawsuits on their tickets.

By James P. Nader & Joseph A. Once again we take that familiar voyage know as "determining seaman status." No matter how familiar the voyage there are always changes in the currents which guide your path. Seaman status is important because only a seaman may receive maintenance and cure, and pursue a claim for Jones Act negligence or unseaworthiness. The basic requirements for seaman status are well established in maritime law. In order to qualify as a seaman under the Jones Act, a person's employment duties must contribute to the mission of the vessel and be connected to an identifiable group of vessels in navigation. The United States Supreme Court has held that seaman status should be determined by the specific facts of each case.

The Federal Maritime Commission, or FMC, is currently making a formal investigation into exclusive tug franchise arrangements in ports in Florida and the lower Mississippi River area. The issue is whether these licenses, with which marine terminal operators grant exclusive towing licenses to certain tug companies, are unreasonably anticompetitive and violate the Shipping Act of 1984. The FMC initially began an inquiry into supposed exclusive franchise agreements involving some tug operators and dry bulk terminals on the lower Mississippi River, but this investigation soon lead to inquiries into the practices of two Florida Ports, Port Canaveral and Port Everglades.

In 1991, casinos were legalized in the state of Louisiana through the passage of the Louisiana Gaming Act. Riverboat casinos have been operational in the state since 1993. The Louisiana Gaming Act allows for fifteen riverboat licenses with mandatory Coast Guard certification of the vessels. The Act allows for both dockside and riverboat gaming. Five other states have riverboat casino gambling: Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri and Mississippi. Although riverboat gaming has gained legal recognition in these states, riverboat casino employees have not had the same success in gaining seaman status under the Jones Act. The Jones Act (46 U.S.C. sec.

Alcohol and drugs too frequently play a major role in maritime accidents. Subsequent to these accidents there are multiple problems involved in the collecting of specimens for testing the presence of alcohol or drugs in an individual's body. The Coast Guard has proposed several changes in the procedure for collecting those specimens. These proposed requirements would help to better understand and eventually avoid problems like the infamous Exxon Valdez accident of 1989, where the captain's blood alcohol content was .061% when finally taken eleven hours after the ship ran aground. Alcohol was also alleged to be a factor in the sinking of the Cape Fear off the coast of New England in 1999.

On September 6, 1992, the M/V H. Lee (White) approached the Grosse Ile Toll Bridge on the Trenton Channel of the Detroit River. The M/V White is a 700 ft. cargo freighter that is 78 ft. wide and has a 13,000 lb. port-bow anchor. On that particular day, the M/V White was carrying 67 million lbs. of iron ore. The Grosse Ill Toll Bridge (the bridge) is a privately owned toll bridge over the Detroit River. The bridge opens for vessel traffic with a pivot system. It has a 305 ft. swing span in the center of the bridge that pivots open allowing for the passage of vessels. Bracketing the swing section are two 180 ft. fixed spans that allow for a 125 ft. draw once the swing span is open. Therefore, the bridge allows for little margin of error for a ship such as the M/V White which is 78 ft.

Maritime law traditionally recognized only two claims by a seaman injured in the course of his employment. One claim was for maintenance and cure along with wages until the end of the voyage, and the other claim was damages for injuries sustained due to the unseaworthiness of the ship. Eventually, the Jones Act was passed creating an additional right of action for seaman under the theory of negligence. In contrast to the rights afforded to seamen, vessel owners have also been provided with certain defenses and immunities. One such defense is the primary duty doctrine. Under the primary duty doctrine, a Jones Act seaman may not recover from a vessel owner for injuries caused by the seaman's own failure to perform a duty imposed on him by his employment.

Maintenance and Cure is the obligation of a ship owner who employs seamen to care for them in the event that they are injured or become ill during their service to the vessel. This duty can be traced back to medieval maritime law. What is maintenance and cure? Maintenance is the right of a seaman to food and lodging if he falls ill or becomes injured while in the service of his vessel. Cure is the right to necessary medical services. The duty of the Jones Act employer to pay maintenance and cure is triggered when the seaman falls ill or is injured regardless of fault. A claim for maintenance and cure may be asserted by anyone who is a Jones Act seaman. To be eligible the seaman must be acting in the service of his vessel at the time of the illness or injury.

In March of 1998, the owners of M/V Golden Prince were locked in a wage dispute with current and former crewmembers. The vessel owners hired a law firm from New Orleans, La., to help resolve this wage dispute. The crew sought wages and penalties from the ship owner due to an alleged breach of contract governing their pay. Ultimately, the crewmembers seized M/V Golden Prince to enforce their claims. The law firm rendered over $136,000.00 in legal fees to settle the wage claims and negotiate the release of the seized vessel. These legal fees were never paid by the ship owner. Subsequently, in January of 1999, creditors of M/V Golden Prince seized the vessel. The vessel was then sold at a public auction for $3.51 million.