In the maritime industry, workers are usually protected by one of two federal acts – the Jones Act or the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA). Knowing which one applies is critical for any maritime employer.
The Jones Act
46 U.S.C. § 30104 allows a “seaman” injured in the course of their employment to sue their employer for negligence under the Jones Act, for unseaworthiness, and for maintenance and cure. To qualify as a Jones Act seaman, the seaman must satisfy two prongs: (1) their duties must contribute to the function of a vessel (or vessels) and the accomplishment of its mission; and (2) they must have a connection to a vessel in navigation that is substantial in both duration and nature. Stated differently, a Jones Act seaman is one who spends at least 30% of their work time on a vessel that is in navigation.
A Jones Act seaman’s employer owes a non-delegable duty to provide a reasonably safe place to work and is vicariously liable for the acts of its other crew member employees. Absent exceptional circumstances, if a Jones Act seaman is injured on the job, they are automatically guaranteed payment of maintenance, daily living expenses, and cure, all reasonable medical treatment, from their employer. Should they choose to pursue litigation, a seaman’s claims against their employer under the Jones Act closely resemble a negligence civil lawsuit, with some caveats.
The Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act
33 U.S.C. § 901 et seq. provides workers’ compensation to primarily land-based maritime workers who do not qualify as Jones Act seamen. To qualify for coverage, a worker must satisfy the LHWCA’s “situs and status” test. The situs test under § 903(a) requires that an injury must take place on the “navigable waters of the United States (including any adjoining pier, wharf, dry dock, terminal building way, marine railway, or other adjoining area customarily used by an employer in loading, unloading, repairing, dismantling, or building a vessel).” The status test under 33 U.S.C. § 902(3) requires the worker to be “engaged in maritime employment[,]” which includes occupations such as longshoring, stevedoring, harbor workers, marine terminal workers, ship repairmen, shipbuilders, and shipbreakers.
If a worker is entitled to compensation under the LHWCA, their employer must provide medical and disability payments for work-related injuries (again, absent exceptional circumstances) without proof of negligence. 33 U.S.C. § 904. The employer is tort immune from the worker’s claims unless the employer fails to secure payment of compensation as required under the LHWCA. 33 U.S.C. § 905(a). However, in certain circumstances, the injured worker can sue a third-party in tort. A common example is when the worker’s injury is caused by the negligence of a vessel. In those situations, 33 U.S.C. § 905(b) allows the injured worker to maintain a negligence action directly against the vessel and her owners.
Business Implications of Jones Act vs. Longshore Distinction
Understanding these differences informs an employer’s long-term forecast for insurance reserves, litigation exposure, and employment expenses. It also mitigates the risk of mischaracterizing a Jones Act seaman as a longshore worker, or vice versa. These mischaracterizations carry potentially detrimental consequences in litigation.
Take, for example, Sanchez v. Smart Fabricators of Texas, L.L.C., 997 F.3d 564 (5th Cir. 2021). In Sanchez, the Fifth Circuit found that a shoreside welder satisfied the first prong of the Jones Act seaman test. Sanchez, 997 F.3d at 574. But because the welder’s work bore only a “transitory or sporadic connection” to the vessel, the court ultimately held that he could not satisfy the second prong. Id. at 575-76.
While the court did not afford seaman status to the welder, Sanchez offers a cautionary tale. An employer who does not erect clear barriers to the scope of its employees’ job duties may inadvertently bestow Jones Act status on a longshoreman. This is why maritime employers must remain acutely aware of the nature of all work performed by its employees – especially those performing traditional longshore activities. Failure to do so creates a high risk of mistakenly denying benefits under the Jones Act, which carries significant legal consequences.
A dedicated, 24/7 emergency response team that integrates Jones Act and LHWCA representation reduces risk and cost by quickly classifying status, calibrating exposure, and channeling claims down the right path. This dual focus controls severity, avoids forum missteps, aligns insurance and reserves, and accelerates resolution without sacrificing defensibility.
Disclaimer: This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice, nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Galloway and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.
