Maritime Injury Lawyers

Speak With A Maritime Lawyer Now
Calls Answered 24/7


Negligence Under the Jones Act

Contemporary seamen often have to work under hazardous conditions that could easily lead to serious personal injury if circumstances on their vessel go even slightly awry. Many seamen sustain severe harm in environments that seem to be reasonably safe. An undetected gas leak that suddenly ignites, a conveyor belt that catches a wayward hand, a hatch negligently left open on the deck in a worker’s walking path—these are just a few simple scenarios that have landed seamen in the hospital.

When disaster strikes, injured seamen have several options when it comes to obtaining just compensation for the physical harm they suffered. What we will focus on here is the Jones Act, an approximately 100-year-old statute that provides seamen with financial recompense in proportion to the negligence of their employer. Who qualifies for the protections of the Jones Act? How are degrees of negligence calculated under its provisions? We’ll answer these and other questions below.

Negligence Under the Jones Act

Causes of Action

The law recognizes three causes of action available to an injured seaman. These are the following:

Maintenance and Cure – This is financial compensation provided to a seaman irrespective of the degree of fault they assume for their injury, provided that the individual has not acted with willful negligence (e.g., intentionally tried to harm themselves). It is part of general maritime law, and it consists of two separate components: (1) maintenance and (2) cure. The first component, maintenance, refers to payments intended to make up for lost wages. The second component, cure, covers the seaman’s medical expenses.

Unseaworthiness – The employer responsible for the vessel on which seamen perform their duties is required by law to ensure that the ship is always seaworthy. A vessel can be ruled to be unseaworthy if it contains defective equipment, unsafe walkways, inadequate (or missing) safety gear, or other features that could lead to harm. The ship may also be considered unseaworthy under the law if its crew members were denied sufficient training.

Jones Act violations – If the employer is found to be in violation of the Jones Act, then the seaman is entitled to financial compensation similar to that provided by maintenance and cure. What’s the difference between the two causes of action? To qualify for compensation under the Jones Act, it must be shown that the employer is responsible for the seaman’s injury or illness. This is the statute that we will explore in more detail later on.

Keep in mind that it’s possible to invoke multiple claims of actions when pursuing a case against an employer. For example, an injured seaman can qualify for compensation under the provisions of maintenance and cure in addition to the Jones Act.

Jones Act violations

Overview of the Jones Act

The Jones Act, otherwise known as the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, was signed by President Woodrow Wilson in an effort to bolster the U.S. maritime commerce industry. This statute—still very much in force today—consists of a variety of laws governing a wide range of matters pertinent to this industry, but the only part that concerns our present discussion is 46 USC 30104: “Personal injury to or death of seamen.” This section legally endows “a seaman injured in the course of employment… with the right of trial by jury, against the employer.”

Definition of a Seaman According to the Jones Act

The Jones Act grants important rights to seamen who seek compensation for their on-the-job injuries—but who does this statute classify as a seaman? The question isn’t as straightforward as it sounds.

For example, if the employee is an independent contractor rather than a salaried employee, should he or she be considered a seaman who is entitled to Jones Act protections? (Incidentally, judges often rule that this is indeed the case.)

What about someone whose job duties only infrequently bring them on board a vessel? When Jones Act cases go through the courts, it must be determined whether the plaintiff qualifies as a seaman. What the courts tend to look at is the nature of the employee’s role on the vessel (e.g., whether they perform duties essential for the operation of the ship) and the length of their employment.

Negligence and the Jones Act

Negligence and the Jones Act

Now we arrive at the heart of the issue: negligence. The primary distinction between maintenance and cure compensation and Jones Act compensation is that while the former does not depend on proving employer negligence, the latter does.

To prevail in a Jones Act case, the plaintiff must prove four separate elements relating to negligence:

  1. Duty – It must be shown that the employer had a duty of care—e.g., the responsibility to provide reasonable training, properly functioning equipment, and acceptable safety practices. Under general maritime law, the employer has a non-negotiable duty to maintain a seaworthy vessel.
  2. Breach – It must be shown that the employer violated this duty of care.
  3. Causation – It must be shown that the employee’s injury or illness was caused by this breach. In Jones Act cases, this element is governed by the standard of so-called featherweight causation, which means that even slight negligence on the behalf of the defendant is enough to prove liability.
  4. Damages – It must be shown that the employee suffered real harm. An injury that does not require the employee to miss work or seek medical aid would probably fail to meet this standard.

These four elements are common to all negligence cases, not merely those involving the Jones Act.

Comparative Negligence

Comparative Negligence Under the Jones Act

Comparative negligence is the idea that financial compensation for personal injury should be calculated according to the degree of responsibility borne by each party. It is the standard recognized by the Jones Act and used to determine financial compensation in these cases.

Here’s an example. If a plaintiff is ruled to be 40% responsible for their injury, then the amount awarded by the court will be lowered by 40%. Let’s say that their injury is determined to be worth $100,000. The plaintiff will receive only $60,000, as their partial responsibility for their condition is factored into the payout.

In many negligence cases that do not involve the Jones Act, the plaintiff must prove that the other party’s negligence was the primary cause of the illness or injury under consideration. Not so with Jones Act cases. The employer can be found to be negligent even when the seaman is chiefly at fault for their injury.

In fact, the plaintiff can prevail in a Jones Act case even if it is shown that they bear almost all of the responsibility for the incident under consideration. However, in these instances, the court will sharply reduce the monetary award to be granted to the plaintiff.

If the seaman is found to be entirely responsible for their injury, then no compensation will be awarded. Nonetheless, the seaman may still qualify for maintenance and cure payments.

Negligence Per Se

Negligence Per Se

The doctrine of negligence per se constitutes an exception to the standard of comparative negligence. This simply means that the employer will be found entirely responsible for a seaman’s injury if it is found to result from the employer’s violation of a safety statute. It does not matter if the employee may have been partly at fault for the harm they sustained—the employer’s failure to abide by these safety laws supersedes these considerations.

Damages Under the Jones Act

Damages Under the Jones Act

When calculating damages to be awarded to the injured seaman, the courts consider multiple factors, including lost wages, pain and suffering, and medical expenses. The courts weigh not only the losses already incurred by the seaman but, also, if applicable, the projected diminishment of their future earning ability and quality of life.

If you or someone you know suffered significant injury as a result of employer’s violation of the Jones Act, you need to contact experienced legal professionals to analyze your case. You can contact Maintenance and Cure: Schechter, McElwee, Shaffer & Harris, L.L.P., for a free confidential case evaluation.

 

FREE confidential case Evaluation
Contact our experienced maritime attorneys to see if you have a case.

 
 
 
 
 

* Please be aware that your submission of this contact form does not establish an attorney-client relationship.

Featured In:

Recently
Filed Cases

Recent
Successful Cases
Jones Act Lawyer

tbls

We have board certified personal injury trial lawyers prepared to take on your case. Details

 

bbb

Newsweek Leaders in Maritime
FREE confidential case Evaluation
Contact our experienced maritime attorneys to see if you have a case.

 
 
 
 
 

* Please be aware that your submission of this contact form does not establish an attorney-client relationship.
Recently
Filed Cases

Recent
Successful Cases

Negligence Under the Jones Act

Contemporary seamen often have to work under hazardous conditions that could easily lead to serious personal injury if circumstances on their vessel go even slightly awry. Many seamen sustain severe harm in environments that seem to be reasonably safe. An undetected gas leak that suddenly ignites, a conveyor belt that catches a wayward hand, a hatch negligently left open on the deck in a worker’s walking path—these are just a few simple scenarios that have landed seamen in the hospital.

When disaster strikes, injured seamen have several options when it comes to obtaining just compensation for the physical harm they suffered. What we will focus on here is the Jones Act, an approximately 100-year-old statute that provides seamen with financial recompense in proportion to the negligence of their employer. Who qualifies for the protections of the Jones Act? How are degrees of negligence calculated under its provisions? We’ll answer these and other questions below.

Negligence Under the Jones Act

Causes of Action

The law recognizes three causes of action available to an injured seaman. These are the following:

Maintenance and Cure – This is financial compensation provided to a seaman irrespective of the degree of fault they assume for their injury, provided that the individual has not acted with willful negligence (e.g., intentionally tried to harm themselves). It is part of general maritime law, and it consists of two separate components: (1) maintenance and (2) cure. The first component, maintenance, refers to payments intended to make up for lost wages. The second component, cure, covers the seaman’s medical expenses.

Unseaworthiness – The employer responsible for the vessel on which seamen perform their duties is required by law to ensure that the ship is always seaworthy. A vessel can be ruled to be unseaworthy if it contains defective equipment, unsafe walkways, inadequate (or missing) safety gear, or other features that could lead to harm. The ship may also be considered unseaworthy under the law if its crew members were denied sufficient training.

Jones Act violations – If the employer is found to be in violation of the Jones Act, then the seaman is entitled to financial compensation similar to that provided by maintenance and cure. What’s the difference between the two causes of action? To qualify for compensation under the Jones Act, it must be shown that the employer is responsible for the seaman’s injury or illness. This is the statute that we will explore in more detail later on.

Keep in mind that it’s possible to invoke multiple claims of actions when pursuing a case against an employer. For example, an injured seaman can qualify for compensation under the provisions of maintenance and cure in addition to the Jones Act.

Jones Act violations

Overview of the Jones Act

The Jones Act, otherwise known as the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, was signed by President Woodrow Wilson in an effort to bolster the U.S. maritime commerce industry. This statute—still very much in force today—consists of a variety of laws governing a wide range of matters pertinent to this industry, but the only part that concerns our present discussion is 46 USC 30104: “Personal injury to or death of seamen.” This section legally endows “a seaman injured in the course of employment… with the right of trial by jury, against the employer.”

Definition of a Seaman According to the Jones Act

The Jones Act grants important rights to seamen who seek compensation for their on-the-job injuries—but who does this statute classify as a seaman? The question isn’t as straightforward as it sounds.

For example, if the employee is an independent contractor rather than a salaried employee, should he or she be considered a seaman who is entitled to Jones Act protections? (Incidentally, judges often rule that this is indeed the case.)

What about someone whose job duties only infrequently bring them on board a vessel? When Jones Act cases go through the courts, it must be determined whether the plaintiff qualifies as a seaman. What the courts tend to look at is the nature of the employee’s role on the vessel (e.g., whether they perform duties essential for the operation of the ship) and the length of their employment.

Negligence and the Jones Act

Negligence and the Jones Act

Now we arrive at the heart of the issue: negligence. The primary distinction between maintenance and cure compensation and Jones Act compensation is that while the former does not depend on proving employer negligence, the latter does.

To prevail in a Jones Act case, the plaintiff must prove four separate elements relating to negligence:

  1. Duty – It must be shown that the employer had a duty of care—e.g., the responsibility to provide reasonable training, properly functioning equipment, and acceptable safety practices. Under general maritime law, the employer has a non-negotiable duty to maintain a seaworthy vessel.
  2. Breach – It must be shown that the employer violated this duty of care.
  3. Causation – It must be shown that the employee’s injury or illness was caused by this breach. In Jones Act cases, this element is governed by the standard of so-called featherweight causation, which means that even slight negligence on the behalf of the defendant is enough to prove liability.
  4. Damages – It must be shown that the employee suffered real harm. An injury that does not require the employee to miss work or seek medical aid would probably fail to meet this standard.

These four elements are common to all negligence cases, not merely those involving the Jones Act.

Comparative Negligence

Comparative Negligence Under the Jones Act

Comparative negligence is the idea that financial compensation for personal injury should be calculated according to the degree of responsibility borne by each party. It is the standard recognized by the Jones Act and used to determine financial compensation in these cases.

Here’s an example. If a plaintiff is ruled to be 40% responsible for their injury, then the amount awarded by the court will be lowered by 40%. Let’s say that their injury is determined to be worth $100,000. The plaintiff will receive only $60,000, as their partial responsibility for their condition is factored into the payout.

In many negligence cases that do not involve the Jones Act, the plaintiff must prove that the other party’s negligence was the primary cause of the illness or injury under consideration. Not so with Jones Act cases. The employer can be found to be negligent even when the seaman is chiefly at fault for their injury.

In fact, the plaintiff can prevail in a Jones Act case even if it is shown that they bear almost all of the responsibility for the incident under consideration. However, in these instances, the court will sharply reduce the monetary award to be granted to the plaintiff.

If the seaman is found to be entirely responsible for their injury, then no compensation will be awarded. Nonetheless, the seaman may still qualify for maintenance and cure payments.

Negligence Per Se

Negligence Per Se

The doctrine of negligence per se constitutes an exception to the standard of comparative negligence. This simply means that the employer will be found entirely responsible for a seaman’s injury if it is found to result from the employer’s violation of a safety statute. It does not matter if the employee may have been partly at fault for the harm they sustained—the employer’s failure to abide by these safety laws supersedes these considerations.

Damages Under the Jones Act

Damages Under the Jones Act

When calculating damages to be awarded to the injured seaman, the courts consider multiple factors, including lost wages, pain and suffering, and medical expenses. The courts weigh not only the losses already incurred by the seaman but, also, if applicable, the projected diminishment of their future earning ability and quality of life.

If you or someone you know suffered significant injury as a result of employer’s violation of the Jones Act, you need to contact experienced legal professionals to analyze your case. You can contact Maintenance and Cure: Schechter, McElwee, Shaffer & Harris, L.L.P., for a free confidential case evaluation.

 

Jones Act Lawyer

tbls

We have board certified personal injury trial lawyers prepared to take on your case. Details

 

bbb

Newsweek Leaders in Maritime
FREE confidential case Evaluation
Contact our experienced maritime attorneys to see if you have a case.

 
 
 
 
 

* Please be aware that your submission of this contact form does not establish an attorney-client relationship.

Jones Act Lawyer

tbls

We have board certified personal injury trial lawyers prepared to take on your case. Details

 

bbb

Newsweek Leaders in Maritime
Recently
Filed Cases

Negligence Under the Jones Act

Contemporary seamen often have to work under hazardous conditions that could easily lead to serious personal injury if circumstances on their vessel go even slightly awry. Many seamen sustain severe harm in environments that seem to be reasonably safe. An undetected gas leak that suddenly ignites, a conveyor belt that catches a wayward hand, a hatch negligently left open on the deck in a worker’s walking path—these are just a few simple scenarios that have landed seamen in the hospital.

When disaster strikes, injured seamen have several options when it comes to obtaining just compensation for the physical harm they suffered. What we will focus on here is the Jones Act, an approximately 100-year-old statute that provides seamen with financial recompense in proportion to the negligence of their employer. Who qualifies for the protections of the Jones Act? How are degrees of negligence calculated under its provisions? We’ll answer these and other questions below.

Negligence Under the Jones Act

Causes of Action

The law recognizes three causes of action available to an injured seaman. These are the following:

Maintenance and Cure – This is financial compensation provided to a seaman irrespective of the degree of fault they assume for their injury, provided that the individual has not acted with willful negligence (e.g., intentionally tried to harm themselves). It is part of general maritime law, and it consists of two separate components: (1) maintenance and (2) cure. The first component, maintenance, refers to payments intended to make up for lost wages. The second component, cure, covers the seaman’s medical expenses.

Unseaworthiness – The employer responsible for the vessel on which seamen perform their duties is required by law to ensure that the ship is always seaworthy. A vessel can be ruled to be unseaworthy if it contains defective equipment, unsafe walkways, inadequate (or missing) safety gear, or other features that could lead to harm. The ship may also be considered unseaworthy under the law if its crew members were denied sufficient training.

Jones Act violations – If the employer is found to be in violation of the Jones Act, then the seaman is entitled to financial compensation similar to that provided by maintenance and cure. What’s the difference between the two causes of action? To qualify for compensation under the Jones Act, it must be shown that the employer is responsible for the seaman’s injury or illness. This is the statute that we will explore in more detail later on.

Keep in mind that it’s possible to invoke multiple claims of actions when pursuing a case against an employer. For example, an injured seaman can qualify for compensation under the provisions of maintenance and cure in addition to the Jones Act.

Jones Act violations

Overview of the Jones Act

The Jones Act, otherwise known as the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, was signed by President Woodrow Wilson in an effort to bolster the U.S. maritime commerce industry. This statute—still very much in force today—consists of a variety of laws governing a wide range of matters pertinent to this industry, but the only part that concerns our present discussion is 46 USC 30104: “Personal injury to or death of seamen.” This section legally endows “a seaman injured in the course of employment… with the right of trial by jury, against the employer.”

Definition of a Seaman According to the Jones Act

The Jones Act grants important rights to seamen who seek compensation for their on-the-job injuries—but who does this statute classify as a seaman? The question isn’t as straightforward as it sounds.

For example, if the employee is an independent contractor rather than a salaried employee, should he or she be considered a seaman who is entitled to Jones Act protections? (Incidentally, judges often rule that this is indeed the case.)

What about someone whose job duties only infrequently bring them on board a vessel? When Jones Act cases go through the courts, it must be determined whether the plaintiff qualifies as a seaman. What the courts tend to look at is the nature of the employee’s role on the vessel (e.g., whether they perform duties essential for the operation of the ship) and the length of their employment.

Negligence and the Jones Act

Negligence and the Jones Act

Now we arrive at the heart of the issue: negligence. The primary distinction between maintenance and cure compensation and Jones Act compensation is that while the former does not depend on proving employer negligence, the latter does.

To prevail in a Jones Act case, the plaintiff must prove four separate elements relating to negligence:

  1. Duty – It must be shown that the employer had a duty of care—e.g., the responsibility to provide reasonable training, properly functioning equipment, and acceptable safety practices. Under general maritime law, the employer has a non-negotiable duty to maintain a seaworthy vessel.
  2. Breach – It must be shown that the employer violated this duty of care.
  3. Causation – It must be shown that the employee’s injury or illness was caused by this breach. In Jones Act cases, this element is governed by the standard of so-called featherweight causation, which means that even slight negligence on the behalf of the defendant is enough to prove liability.
  4. Damages – It must be shown that the employee suffered real harm. An injury that does not require the employee to miss work or seek medical aid would probably fail to meet this standard.

These four elements are common to all negligence cases, not merely those involving the Jones Act.

Comparative Negligence

Comparative Negligence Under the Jones Act

Comparative negligence is the idea that financial compensation for personal injury should be calculated according to the degree of responsibility borne by each party. It is the standard recognized by the Jones Act and used to determine financial compensation in these cases.

Here’s an example. If a plaintiff is ruled to be 40% responsible for their injury, then the amount awarded by the court will be lowered by 40%. Let’s say that their injury is determined to be worth $100,000. The plaintiff will receive only $60,000, as their partial responsibility for their condition is factored into the payout.

In many negligence cases that do not involve the Jones Act, the plaintiff must prove that the other party’s negligence was the primary cause of the illness or injury under consideration. Not so with Jones Act cases. The employer can be found to be negligent even when the seaman is chiefly at fault for their injury.

In fact, the plaintiff can prevail in a Jones Act case even if it is shown that they bear almost all of the responsibility for the incident under consideration. However, in these instances, the court will sharply reduce the monetary award to be granted to the plaintiff.

If the seaman is found to be entirely responsible for their injury, then no compensation will be awarded. Nonetheless, the seaman may still qualify for maintenance and cure payments.

Negligence Per Se

Negligence Per Se

The doctrine of negligence per se constitutes an exception to the standard of comparative negligence. This simply means that the employer will be found entirely responsible for a seaman’s injury if it is found to result from the employer’s violation of a safety statute. It does not matter if the employee may have been partly at fault for the harm they sustained—the employer’s failure to abide by these safety laws supersedes these considerations.

Damages Under the Jones Act

Damages Under the Jones Act

When calculating damages to be awarded to the injured seaman, the courts consider multiple factors, including lost wages, pain and suffering, and medical expenses. The courts weigh not only the losses already incurred by the seaman but, also, if applicable, the projected diminishment of their future earning ability and quality of life.

If you or someone you know suffered significant injury as a result of employer’s violation of the Jones Act, you need to contact experienced legal professionals to analyze your case. You can contact Maintenance and Cure: Schechter, McElwee, Shaffer & Harris, L.L.P., for a free confidential case evaluation.

 

Jones Act Lawyer
Twitter Updates
Maritime Injury Lawyers

Speak With A Maritime Lawyer Now
Calls Answered 24/7


Board Certified Attorneys

We are maritime injury attorneys that have recovered millions for our injured clients. We have always been a strong advocate for maritime personal injury victims and the families of those who are killed while working in service of a vessel or under the Jones Act law. Our concern is for the safety of those involved and helping their families find out the whereabouts and conditions of their loved ones.

These are some of the diverse groups of injured workers we have represented:

  • Jones Act seamen
  • Workers on oil rigs, offshore platforms and jack-up rigs
  • Crews and workers on barges, supply boats, tankers, freighters and other vessels

The list is by no means comprehensive. If you are unsure whether you qualify as a Jones Act seamen or whether you might be covered by other maritime regulations, it’s vital that you contact our maritime lawyers today to learn about your rights.

We have represented workers and their families in the following disasters:

  • Deepwater Horizon Disaster
  • M/V Jillian Morrison Explosion
  • Bouchard Transportation Co. Inc. Barge B No. 125 Explosion
  • British Petroleum Texas City Refinery Explosion
  • Phillips 66 Refinery Explosion

The team of Jones Act attorneys and maritime lawyers at SMSH have over 100 years of combined trial experience. Contact our Jones Act lawyers today for a free, confidential case evaluation.

Why Hire the Worldwide Jones Act, Offshore & Maritime Injury Lawyers at Schechter, McElwee, Shaffer and Harris?

The Jones Act and maritime injury lawyers at Schechter, McElwee, Shaffer and Harris have spent more than five decades representing seamen, longshoremen and other maritime workers, and recovered millions of dollars for our clients. SMSH has always been a strong advocate for maritime personal injury victims and the families of those who are killed while working in service of a vessel. Our concern is for the safety of those involved and helping their families find out the whereabouts and conditions of their loved ones, as well as recovering the compensation they are entitled to for injuries, medical bills and other damages.

Here are some of the reasons why thousands of injured maritime workers have chosen Schechter, McElwee, Shaffer and Harris to represent their interests:

  • We have recovered over $620 million dollars for offshore and maritime workers, including recovery of $17.5 million in the largest Jones Act settlement ever paid by the United States government.
  • Each of our Jones Act attorneys and maritime injury lawyers has more than 25 years of experience, with total of more than 100 years of trial experience for the team.
  • Our maritime injury lawyers have represented clients in some of the nation’s worst maritime and refinery disasters, including: the Deepwater Horizon explosion; the M/V Jillian Morrison explosion; the Bouchard Transportation Co. Inc. Barge B No. 125 explosion; the British Petroleum Texas City Refinery explosion; and the Phillips 66 Refinery explosion.
  • As dedicated maritime injury and Jones Act attorneys, we understand the financial difficulties that families often face when a loved one is injured and unable to work. Schechter, McElwee, Shaffer and Harris offers interest free loans to assist our clients with day-to-day living expenses while waiting for the conclusion of their case.
  • Our attorneys provide assistance to maritime, offshore and port workers across the United States.
  • We have board certified Personal Injury Trial lawyers.
 

The Maritime Attorney Difference

Maritime and offshore accidents fall under a different set of laws than other personal injury or workers’ compensation claims. There are specific maritime laws that govern claims, including the Jones Act, the Longshoremen and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act and general maritime laws. To receive the full protections these laws offer, it’s crucial to have an attorney who understands the complexities of each. If you’ve been injured while working on a vessel, offshore or in one of the nation’s many ports, contact the Jones Act attorneys at Schechter, McElwee, Shaffer and Harris today for a free consultation.
Our experienced offshore injury lawyers have handled cases throughout the Gulf of Mexico coastal region of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida, and represented clients from all 50 states of the United States. We have years of experience representing the crew working on inland waters such as the Mississippi River, Ohio River, Kentucky River, the Great Lakes, Lake Michigan, Lake Superior, Lake Huron, and many more. We have also handled cases worldwide in countries as far away as the Ukraine and Israel. We routinely represent clients from the Central American countries of Honduras, El Salvador, and Nicaragua. We have also made claims for clients from Columbia, Venezuela, Bangladesh, The Philippines, Romania, Croatia, England, Ireland, Spain, The Netherlands, Russia, China, Mexico, and Brazil.

Time is of the Essence

If you or a member of your family has been seriously injured or killed as the result of an offshore accident, please speak to a qualified maritime lawyer before talking to your employer or any insurance company or adjuster. If you work on a vessel, boat, barge, tanker, fishing boat, an offshore drilling rig or platform, or any other kind of ship, you may qualify for Jones Act compensation. Working in, on, or near water means you need the specially-trained legal assistance of the Board Certified maritime lawyers of Schechter, McElwee, Shaffer & Harris, L.L.P.

A few small tidbits of advice for the injured offshore worker:

  1. Fill out an accident report or incident paperwork as soon as possible after your injury.
  2. If your employer gives you any paperwork to sign, have it reviewed by a competent maritime lawyer so you don’t waive your rights to more money.
  3. Do not give a recorded statement to anyone without first seeking legal counsel.
  4. Do not accept the word of a company doctor as to the extent of your injuries, seek out your own doctor for a second-opinion.
We are Worldwide Jones Act attorneys and Maritime lawyers with over 100 years combined experience in Maritime Personal Injury Cases and we have handled thousands of cases. Your initial consultation for your maritime accident case is FREE. You pay us nothing unless we win your case and get you money. Call a maritime lawyer NOW at 1-800-836-5830 or e-mail us at info@smslegal.com.

How can we help?

captcha
* Please be aware that your submission of this contact form does not establish an attorney-client relationship.

Recent Successful Cases

$17.5 Million in Jones Act Deckhand Case

 

In March 2008, our client was employed as a deckhand in a shipyard. He suffered a head injury.

Read More


$2.5 Million Recovered in Jones Act Case

 

While on stern of tug attempting to hook up a barge, the “L” line became tight, broke, hit our client,

Read More


$1.6 Million Recovered for Offshore Workers

 

On April 20, 2007, while working as blasters, painting an offshore rig on a platform, our two clients injured

Read More