It is our understanding that the Jones Act is a federal law that provides benefits for employees
injured on sea-going vessels in navigable waters and offshore oil rigs that are not
permanently affixed to the ocean floor. To recover under the Jones Act, the injury must have
occurred during the course of employment and the worker must prove seaman status.
Our research into this matter has shown that there are several essential requirements to
determine seaman status and gain recovery under the act:
? (a). An employee's duties must contribute to the function of the vessel or to
the accomplishment of its mission;
? (b). A seaman must have a connection with a vessel in navigation (or to an
identifiable group of such vessels), that is substantial in terms of both its
duration and its nature
? (c). The duration of a worker's connection to a vessel and the nature of the
worker's activities, taken together, determine whether a maritime worker is a
seaman because the ultimate inquiry is whether the worker in question is a
member of the vessel's crew or simply a land-based employee who happens to
be working on a vessel at a given time
? (d). A distinction must be made between sea-based workers and land-based
workers who have only a transitory or sporadic connection to a vessel in
navigation. Land-based maritime workers do not become seamen because
they happen to be working aboard a vessel when they are injured, and
seamen do not lose Jones Act protection where the course of their service to a
vessel takes them ashore. In evaluating the employment-related connection of
a maritime worker to a vessel in navigation, courts should not employ a
"snapshot" test for seamen status, inspecting only the situation as it exists at
the instant of injury; but rather, the total circumstances of an individual's
employment must be weighed to determine whether he has a sufficient
relation to the vessel and
? (e) Jones Act coverage (seaman status) depends not on the place where the
injury is inflicted, but on the nature of the seaman's service, his status as a
member of the vessel, and his relationship as such to the vessel and its
operation in navigable waters.
As installers of modular dock components, and operators of light-duty piling equipment, we
do not see that this coverage is applicable. Further, several court cases concerning this matter
would appear to validate our claims, as follows -
Construction worker was not seaman under 46 USCS Appx ? 688(a), where worker was
injured while drilling holes in wood pilings as part of boat dock construction project, and
although his work history showed involvement in marine construction projects, he was
involved only insofar as his welding or pile-driving skills were needed, much of work was
performed on land, worker was assigned on a project basis, not to a specific vessel or
group of vessels, and he always returned home to eat and sleep, driving back to job site
each day. Snowden v Woodington Corp. (1997, ED Va) 963 F Supp 526, 1997 AMC
2167, vacated, on reh, summary judgment den (1997, ED Va) 1997 US Dist LEXIS 10428.
Where employee was engaged in construction of marina, and he sustained injuries while
on raft carrying timber to marina, he could not recover under 46 USCS Appx ? 688
because movement of lumber to marina aboard raft was not activity in direct aid of
commerce and navigation, but only marginal and incidental to it. Garrisey v West Shore
Marina Associates (1970) 2 Wash App 718, 469 P2d 590.
Diver/dockbuilder who was employed in variety of marine construction jobs and who was
killed while on board heavy-lifting derrick barge in process of removing damaged
mooring platform was harbor worker, not "seaman," under Jones Act. Bundens v J.E.
Brenneman Co. (1995, CA3) 46 F3d 292, 1995 AMC 1330.
