Am I a Seaman Under the Jones Act? The Test in Plain English

Before anyone argues about negligence in a Jones Act case, there is often a fight about whether the injured worker was a seaman at all. It matters because seamen get Jones Act and unseaworthiness remedies, while many other maritime workers fall under compensation schemes instead.

The legal test is for counsel and the court. But the facts that decide it are about how the worker actually spent his time and what he did aboard, which is where a mariner's view helps.

This is a plain-language summary, not legal advice.

The two-part test

In Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis (1995), the Supreme Court set out what a worker must show.

First, his duties must contribute to the function of the vessel or the accomplishment of its mission. This is a broad requirement. A cook, a deckhand, and an engineer all qualify. So can workers who never touch a line, if their job serves what the vessel is there to do.

Second, he must have a connection to a vessel in navigation, or an identifiable fleet of vessels, that is substantial in both duration and nature. This is where most disputes happen.

The 30 percent guideline

On duration, the Court endorsed a rule of thumb. A worker who spends less than about 30 percent of his time in the service of a vessel in navigation generally should not qualify. It is a guideline, not a hard line, but it shapes how these cases are argued.

On nature, the Court said in Harbor Tug and Barge Co. v. Papai (1997) that the connection should expose the worker to the perils of the sea, not simply put him on a vessel now and then for discrete jobs. Some circuits have since added more detailed factors to that question.

The facts that decide it

This is where the record matters, and where the vessel side of the case is usually built:

• What percentage of his working time was spent aboard vessels, and which ones
• Whether those vessels were "in navigation" or laid up, dry-docked, or permanently moored
• Whether he was assigned to a particular vessel or fleet, or moved among jobs
• Whether his work was sea-based or mostly done at the dock
• Whether he lived, ate, and slept aboard
• Whether his duties traveled with the vessel

Time sheets, crew lists, payroll records, dispatch logs, and vessel logs usually tell the story better than anyone's memory.

Is it a vessel?

Status also depends on the thing the worker was serving. In Stewart v. Dutra Construction Co. (2005), the Supreme Court held that a dredge used to move across water counted as a vessel, even though it spent most of its time working in one place. Floating structures that are not practically designed for transport, such as some permanently moored barges or platforms, may not qualify. Those are fact-heavy questions too.

Why an operations expert may be involved

A maritime expert can explain to a court what a worker's duties actually involved aboard, how vessels of that type operate, whether a vessel was in navigation, and how the worker's job related to the vessel's mission. The legal conclusion stays with the court.

Share this with your attorney

Attorneys: request a conflict check

About the author

Captain Mitchell S. Stoller is a Master Mariner Unlimited, former Exxon tanker master, and former Los Angeles Harbor pilot. About Captain Stoller