Key Takeaways
- Partial fault does not automatically prevent recovery under the Jones Act if employer negligence contributed to the accident.
- Compensation may be reduced according to the injured worker’s percentage of responsibility for the accident.
- Evidence such as accident reports, maintenance records, and witness statements may play an important role in determining fault.
After a maritime injury, many workers worry that a mistake they made before the accident will prevent them from pursuing compensation. Employers and insurance companies often argue that an injured worker shares some responsibility for what happened.
Under Section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, simply known as the Jones Act, being partially at fault for an accident does not automatically prevent an injured seaman from recovering compensation. If an employer’s negligence contributed to the injury, the worker may still have a valid claim. However, the amount of compensation recovered may be reduced based on the worker’s percentage of fault.
This legal principle is known as comparative fault.
Ahead, we’ll explore how fault affects injury compensation and what injured maritime workers should know about comparative fault in Jones Act claims.
What Is Comparative Fault Under the Jones Act?
Comparative fault is a legal rule used to determine how responsibility for an accident should be divided between the parties involved.
In a Jones Act case, a court or jury may find that both the employer and the injured worker contributed to the circumstances that caused an injury. When that happens, the injured seaman’s compensation may be reduced according to their percentage of fault.
For example, imagine a seaman suffers $500,000 in damages after a serious onboard injury. If a court determines the worker was 20% responsible for the accident and the employer was 80% responsible, the worker’s compensation could be reduced by 20%, resulting in a recovery of $400,000.
The important takeaway is that an injured seaman may still recover compensation even if they share some responsibility for an accident.
When Comparative Fault Becomes an Issue
Comparative fault often becomes an issue when there is disagreement about what caused a maritime accident.
An employer may argue that a worker failed to follow a safety procedure or acted carelessly, while the worker may contend that unsafe working conditions, inadequate training, defective equipment, or other factors contributed to the injury.
Determining how responsibility should be allocated is often one of the most contested aspects of a Jones Act claim.
How Comparative Fault Affects Compensation
Comparative fault can have a significant impact on the value of a Jones Act claim because it directly affects the amount of compensation an injured worker may recover.
Damages available under the Jones Act may include:
- Medical expenses
- Lost wages
- Loss of future earning capacity
- Pain and suffering
- Mental anguish
- Physical impairment
Once total damages are calculated, any percentage of fault assigned to the worker may reduce the final award.
For example:
- $100,000 in damages with 10% fault = $90,000 recovery
- $500,000 in damages with 25% fault = $375,000 recovery
- $1 million in damages with 40% fault = $600,000 recovery
The financial impact of comparative fault can vary significantly depending on the percentage of responsibility assigned to the injured worker.
What Evidence Is Used to Determine Fault?
Determining fault requires a careful review of the facts surrounding the accident.
Evidence commonly used in Jones Act cases includes:
- Accident reports
- Vessel logs
- Maintenance records
- Safety manuals and procedures
- Training records
- Witness statements
- Photographs and video footage
- Medical records
- Expert testimony
This evidence helps establish how the accident occurred, whether employer negligence contributed to the injury, and how responsibility should be allocated between the parties involved.
Talk to an Experienced Jones Act Attorney
Determining fault in a maritime injury case is rarely simple. The outcome can affect both your ability to pursue a claim and the amount of compensation you may ultimately recover.
If you were injured while working offshore or aboard a vessel, understanding your rights under the Jones Act is an important step after an accident. The maritime injury attorneys at Schechter, Shaffer & Harris have spent decades representing injured seamen, offshore workers, and maritime employees. Our firm has recovered more than $1 billion for thousands of maritime accident victims nationwide since 1964.
Contact us today for a free consultation to discuss your accident, your injuries, and your legal options.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is comparative negligence in maritime law?
Comparative negligence is another term often used to describe comparative fault. Under the Jones Act, it refers to the legal principle that an injured worker’s compensation may be reduced based on their percentage of responsibility for an accident.
Can I recover maritime injury compensation if I was partially at fault?
Yes. Under the Jones Act, an injured seaman may still recover compensation if employer negligence contributed to the injury. Meeting the Jones Act requirements does not mean an employer must be 100% responsible for an accident. In many cases, a seaman negligence claim may still proceed even when the injured maritime worker is partly responsible for what happened. However, the amount recovered may be reduced according to the worker’s percentage of fault.
Who decides fault in a Jones Act case?
If a Jones Act claim proceeds to trial, a judge or jury may determine the percentage of fault assigned to each party based on the evidence presented. During settlement negotiations, the parties often dispute fault percentages when evaluating the value of a claim.
Does comparative fault affect maintenance and cure?
Generally, no. Maintenance and cure is a separate maritime remedy that may be available regardless of who was at fault for the injury. Comparative fault typically applies to Jones Act negligence claims and certain other maritime injury claims.
