Corpus Christi Seaworthiness Act Attorneys
Seeking Fair Compensation for Injured Clients in Nueces County
For incidents and accidents occurring in a maritime environment, maritime
law (otherwise used interchangeably at times with admiralty law) will
dictate the procedures and pathway for resolving civil disputes emanating
from negligence on the high seas. Maritime law remains, to this day, a
unique facet of the total American legal system, featuring federal jurisdiction
for nearly all claims originating on the high seas, for plaintiffs and
defendants embroiled in litigation relating to an offshore incident, maritime
law becomes highly complex. It is also oftentimes subject to practically
unwritten laws and regulations applicable to the sea.
The basis of unseaworthiness claims essentially rests on the foundational
notions found in the traditional laws of the sea that a captain or vessel
owner is ultimately liable should a craft or vessel be found by admiralty
courts to be unseaworthy, later causing injuries to passengers or crew.
This duty of seaworthiness has an evolved legal history in the United
States; however, when considering whether or not to file claims under
the seaworthiness-related act, drawing from case law will prove helpful.
If you were injured aboard an “unseaworthy” vessel, it is crucial
that you speak to an experienced Corpus Christi Seaworthiness Act attorney
at Bandas Law Firm, P.C. Call (361) 238-2789 today.
Determining Unseaworthiness Broadly, Per the U.S. Supreme Court
Per the McFadden v. Blue Star Line (1905), the bar for assigning negligence
liability to a vessel owner or captain asks whether a prudent vessel owner
or captain would have gauged or assessed the prudent level of seaworthiness
of a given ship immediately before a given accident or incident.
Implied Warranties of Seaworthiness Found in U.S. Law
With a maritime law tradition stretching back several centuries, a formal
foundation of maritime obligations under the seaworthiness doctrine lacked
formal codification in the U.S. until the turn of the 20th century. Under
the 1906 Marine Insurance Act, which sought to provide comparable protections
to maritime workers in the workplace commensurate with those conferred
upon continental workers, section 39.1 holds that there exists an implied
warranty in any maritime transit that holds that vessel owners and captains
can be held liable for bringing out to sea on voyage a vessel that is
unseaworthy for the proposed and likely dangers of the maritime route ahead.
Further augmenting this seaworthiness-related act are international maritime
laws Section 3 of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act of 1971 and Rule one
(1) of Article (3) of The Hague-Visby Rules, which, in short, collectively
provide for explicit requirements for vessel owners and employers to make
ships seaworthy, provide ample crew and supplies for the voyage forthcoming,
and provide a litany of other protections for passengers, travelers, and
Finding Appropriate Legal Remedies under the Seaworthiness Law
Should an injured party from a maritime incident seek to remedy their outstanding
damages, filing claims in civil court under the doctrine of seaworthiness
may be a viable solution.
With jurisdiction and venue most likely under U.S. maritime law and in
U.S. admiralty courts, and specific rules applicable to claims filed under
the seaworthiness doctrines, the following individuals should potentially
exhaust their legal options under the following principles or forums before
considering filing suit under seaworthiness doctrines applicable in modernity:
- Any maritime death, including those of passengers, crewmembers, or other
personnel on the vessel, would likely find an appropriate forum under
the Death on the High Seas Act
- Injured maritime workers working predominantly at sea on a ship would probably
first consider filing claims under the Jones Act, which, once resolved,
may require filing an additional civil suit against liable parties to
recover additional or uncompensated damages
- Injured harbor or longshoreman workers would also file claims and go through
the compensation process found under the seaworthiness implied doctrines
found in the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act
Finally, determinations of negligence are highly predicated on case-specific
factors and, as such, determining whether real negligence or breach of
the duty of seaworthiness owed must be scrutinized carefully in the context
of the case prior to filling, as certain routes to compensation for losses
at sea noted above do not force plaintiffs or claimants to meet a traditional
civil burden of proof to establish negligence, yet still provide compensation benefits.
Attributes of Claims Filed under Doctrine of Seaworthiness
If a claims case is ultimately pursued under the grounds of a breach of
the seaworthiness doctrine, plaintiffs have only three years to formally
file suit under maritime law statutes of limitation. If unmet, the plaintiff’s
ability to recover damages is essentially vitiated. Secondly, any claims
cases under the seaworthiness doctrine will not provide plaintiffs the
option to a jury trial. Third, claims emanating as wrongful death or relating
to injuries sustained by crewmember or seamen most likely will incur a
relatively short two-year statute of limitations period.
However, one of the main attractions of filing claims under the seaworthiness
doctrine stems from the ability of most plaintiffs, should their case-specific
context warrant it, to recover larger categories of damages. Specifically,
both economic and non-economic claims can be made, with further expansion
of damage awards potentially recoverable in cases of workers injured,
whose workers’ compensation or Jones Act-related claims failed to
make the individual whole again in terms of the financial damages sustained
as part of their employment.
Contact Bandas Law Firm, P.C. online or by phone at (361) 238-2789 for
a free consultation with one of our knowledgeable Seaworthiness Act attorneys
in Corpus Christi.