Maritime Law vs. Common Law

Damages in Maritime vs Common Law Cases

There are different damages recoverable between a case brought under the Common Law versus Maritime Law.  One difference between the two is that maintenance and cure damages are only available under Maritime Law, specifically, under the Jones Act. 

Maintenance

“Maintenance” refers to the payment an employer must provide an injured seaman if the injury occurs while at sea or even on land if the worker was acting in further service of the ship.  Maintenance payments should cover the worker’s essential room and board expenses, typically including food, lodging costs, and other monthly bills while the worker is injured.

Cure

“Cure” relates to the medical expenses resulting from your injury.  The employer is typically required to cover these expenses.  Although employers may propose specific medical treatment, workers can choose their healthcare providers.  Treatment covered under “cure” includes:

• Medical examinations
• Tests (Imaging, diagnostic testing, etc.)
• Hospital services
• Surgeries
• Physical therapy
• Prescription medication
• Travel expenses associated with treatment
• Emergency services
• Home healthcare
• Most other types of necessary treatment

Law Differences in Maritime vs. Common Law Cases

One major difference in the law between Maritime Law cases and Common Law cases is the standard of negligence used.  For example, in a Jones Act Maritime case, an employer can be found negligent if their failure to provide a reasonably safe place to work played any part, even the slightest, in causing the seaman’s injury.  This is often referred to as the “featherweight” or “slightest” causation standard.

In contrast, the standard for a Common Law case is the reasonable care standard.  Under this standard, you must show that the employer or at fault party failed to act as a “reasonably prudent” person would under similar circumstances.

Example Scenario of Applying The Different Legal Standards

Background:

• Employee: John, a seaman working on a fishing vessel.
• Employer: Oceanic Fishing Co.
• Incident: John slips and falls on a wet deck, injuring his back.

Details:

• The deck was wet because the crew had been washing it down after a catch.
• No warning signs were posted to indicate the wet and slippery condition.
• John was wearing the appropriate non-slip footwear, but the deck was still slick.
• The employer had not implemented a policy to regularly inspect and dry the deck or to place warning signs when the deck was wet.

Under the Jones Act Standard:

• Duty of Care: The employer must provide a reasonably safe working environment for seamen.
• Breach of Duty: The employer failed to place warning signs or dry the deck promptly, creating a hazardous condition.
• Causation: John only needs to show that the employer’s negligence (failing to warn about the wet deck) played any part, even the slightest, in causing his fall and injury.
• Liability: Oceanic Fishing Co. is likely liable because their failure to warn about the wet deck contributed to John’s injury, even if it was only a small contributing factor.

Under the Common Law Standard:

• Duty of Care: The employer must act as a reasonably prudent employer would to prevent harm.
• Breach of Duty: The plaintiff must prove that the employer’s failure to place warning signs or dry the deck was unreasonable under the circumstances.
• Causation: John must show that the employer’s failure to warn or dry the deck was the direct cause of his injury.  He must prove that the injury would not have occurred “but for” the employer’s negligence and that the harm was a foreseeable result of the employer’s actions.
• Liability: The employer might argue that the deck being wet is a common and expected condition on a fishing vessel, and that they acted reasonably given the circumstances.  If the court finds that the employer’s actions were reasonable, or that the wet deck was not the direct cause of John’s injury, Oceanic Fishing Co. might not be liable under Common Law.

Thus, there are many cases where it matters if the Common Law or Maritime Law applies.

Court / Jurisdiction Differences in Maritime vs. Common Law Cases

Which court can hear the case (jurisdiction) in Maritime cases can significantly differ from Common Law cases.  Maritime Laws are federal laws, yet this does not mean that Maritime cases are required to be heard in Federal court.  Many Jones Act cases are heard in local State courts.

The main factors determining which court should handle a Maritime case are:

• Location of the incident/accident
• Location/citizenship of the parties
• Contracts between maritime employers and employees

Jury vs. Arbitration in Maritime vs. Common Law Cases

All legal disputes have someone who is in charge of resolving the dispute and picking a “winning” side.  The three most common people in charge of resolving disputes are (1) judges, (2) juries, and (3) arbitrators.

The decision maker in a personal injury case varies between Maritime Law cases and Common Law cases.  For example, jury trials are generally not available in traditional admiralty cases and Maritime law cases are typically bench trials, where a judge or arbitrator decides the case instead of a jury.  In contrast, there is broad jury trial availability for claims brought under the Common Law. 

The Basics of Maritime Arbitration

• Arbitration is a private dispute resolution process where the parties agree to have their case decided by one or more neutral arbitrators instead of going to court and having a judge or jury decide the case.  The Arbitrator’s decision is binding and enforceable as if it were decided in court by a judge or jury.
• Parties choose arbitrators, who are often experts in the relevant field, such as retired judges or former attorneys.  Arbitrators can be selected from a pool provided by arbitration organizations, such as the AAA (American Arbitration Association).

Fortunately for seamen or maritime workers aboard vessels, the Jones Act allows jury trials in instances of personal injury occurring during employment as a seaman.

Value of Maritime vs. Common Law Cases?

Maritime cases are often just as valuable, if not more so, as Common Law cases despite many of the limitations and obstacles that Maritime Law cases have.  One reason for this is because Maritime cases generally have more people or entities responsible for causing the injuries.  For example, a car crash case under the Common Law will usually only have one person at fault for causing the accident compared to an accident offshore, such as a personnel basket failure, which involves at least the ship owner and crane operator and likely other companies that complete the operations.

When Maritime Law Applies vs Common Law?

Under specific circumstances, Maritime Law can apply even to accidents that occur on land. Maritime Law may apply when land-based activities are essential to maritime commerce and closely linked to the shipping industry. These circumstances can include:

• Loading and unloading of cargo: Even if they occur on land, injuries related to cargo loading or unloading between ships and land may fall under maritime law. These activities are considered critical parts of maritime commerce.
• Shipbuilding and repair: As building or maintaining ships is closely tied to maritime commerce and requires specialized knowledge and skills, the construction and repair of ships can fall under the purview of maritime law.
• Harbor Operations: Directing the movement of ships and cargo is deemed critical to the maritime industry. Thus, facilities such as harbors and ports are covered under maritime law.
• Salvage and towage: The specialized knowledge, along with the risks and expenses involved in the salvage and towage of vessels, makes these activities fall under maritime law.

A seaman injured while on a commute to a vessel is a frequent example of having Maritime law apply to accidents that occur on land.  For example, one case involved a tugboat captain bringing a claim under the Jones Act when he was injured in a car accident on land.  In that case, the tugboat captain was off duty at his home in Baton Rouge, Louisiana when he received a call from the company that he was needed as a tugboat pilot in Vicksburg, Mississippi the next day.  While he was enroute to Vicksburg, he was involved in a motor vehicle accident and was severely injured.  The court determined that he was in service of the operation of the vessel when he was enroute to Vicksburg and thus was entitled to maintenance and cure under Maritime law.

Real Examples of Maritime Cases:

The following is a real example of a maritime case that Morrow & Sheppard obtained a settlement in.

Recently, Morrow & Sheppard trial attorneys Daniel Sheppard and Hogan Leatherwood were able to obtain a $3.2 million dollar verdict in a Louisiana Maritime Case.  In that case, our client (a deckhand) was injured while working aboard the M/V Dustin Danos.  He was smashed between a personnel basket and a conex box during a personnel basket transfer operation.  The incident was witnessed by a fellow deckhand that testified that the captain put the vessel controls in forward motion and stepped away while the personnel basket operation was taking place.  The witness further testified the captain had been using his phone while the operation was taking place.  After the incident, our client approached the captain to discuss what happened and the captain claimed he did not see anything.

Determining if Maritime Law Applies in Your Case

Depending on the circumstances of your accident or injury, it can be challenging to determine if and how maritime law will apply to your case. Maritime Law can be highly complex and difficult to understand. You may achieve a better result in your case by working with an experienced maritime injury lawyer at Morrow & Sheppard LLP.

Call us today for a free, confidential consultation on your case to better understand your options and get the best results.