Skip to main content

Land Based Workers and Potential Jones Act Status

Stuart Crozier

Stuart Crozier

Published: October 01, 2014

Image
LandBasedWorkers200x300.jpg

On 10 March 2014 the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit published its decision in the case of Larry Naquin v Elevating Boats LLC. The issue in this case was whether a traditional land based maritime worker could qualify as a Jones Act Seaman with, as a consequence, significantly increased potential exposure in the event of injury to land-based workers employed by shipowners.

By way of background, Naquin was a vessel repair supervisor working for Elevating Boats LLC (EBI) at a shipyard facility in Houma, Louisiana. Naquin’s primary responsibility was the maintenance and repair of EBI’s fleet of lift boat vessels. Usually work would be carried out whilst the vessels were moored, jacked up or docked in EBI’s shipyard canal. Naquin’s work consisted of repairs, cleaning, painting and general maintenance on the vessels. It was estimated that about 70% of his time was spent working aboard these vessels with the remainder of his time spent working in EBI’s land-based workshop and operating the shipyards crane.

On the day of the incident Naquin was using the crane to lift a heavy load, when it suddenly failed, causing the boom and crane to topple over onto a nearby building. Naquin jumped from the crane but suffered severe injuries to both feet.

Naquin started proceedings against EBI claiming Jones Act Status. A District Court jury concluded that Naquin was a Jones Act Seaman as his work contributed to the function of a discrete fleet of vessels and because he had a connection with the fleet which was substantial both in terms of duration and nature.

EBI appealed the decision arguing, amongst other things, that Naquin should not have been classified as a Jones Act Seaman.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals considered the two-prong test to determine seaman status as established in Chandris v Latsis (1995). Firstly, an employee’s duties must contribute to the function of the vessel or to the accomplishment of its mission. Secondly, a seaman must have a connection to a vessel in navigation or to an identifiable group of such vessels that is substantial in terms of both duration and nature.

The purpose of the test is to distinguish between sea-based maritime employees who are entitled to Jones Act protection and those land-based workers who only have sporadic connection to a vessel and, therefore, do not regularly expose themselves to the “perils of the sea”.

The Supreme Court previously endorsed the general rule of thumb that a worker who spends at least 30% of his time in the service of the vessel in navigation should qualify as a seaman under the Jones Act.

EBI argued that Naquin did not qualify as a Jones Act Seaman because he was rarely required to spend the night aboard a vessel, the vessels he worked on were ordinarily docked, and he almost never ventured beyond the immediate canal area or onto the open sea. Therefore, his duties did not regularly expose him to the perils of the sea.

In a split decision the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decided that, a vessel repairman that serviced lift boats, while they were docked shore-side, would qualify as a Jones Act Seaman.

This was because Naquin’s connection to the lift boat fleet was substantial in terms of the nature and duration of his work cleaning, maintaining and repairing the vessels, even whilst they were docked, which contributed to the mission of the vessel. In addition Naquin’s work on these vessels accounted for nearly 70% of his working time which was far in excess of the established 30% rule of thumb threshold required for a person to qualify as a Jones Act Seaman.

This is an important decision as it has the potential to broaden the scope for land-based workers to qualify as Jones Act Seaman and, therefore, be afforded the relaxed standards of care which are often described as being “featherlight” being applied to negligence and unseaworthiness claims, the reasoning being Jones Act seaman are considered to be protected and wards of the court.

It is understood that EBI has filed a petition for a rehearing en banc. This process is usually granted when it is felt that the case concerns a matter of exceptional public importance. If granted, all active and senior judges of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals will rehear the appeal and give a superseding opinion.  If the en banc rehearing is denied then it is expected that the decision will be appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.  A further article will be published discussing developments.

Share this article: