A seaman recently filed a legal claim against two shipping companies he believes are responsible for his maritime injuries.

Plaintiff James D. registered his lawsuit against Gnots-Reserve Inc. and American River Transportation Co. on Feb. 22, 2019. The legal action was initiated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

According to the lawsuit in question, James was employed as a seaman for Gnots-Reserve Inc. during the last quarter of 2018. He was employed to work on the vessel MS Danielle. On the last day of November 2018, the complainant says he suffered maritime injuries to his shoulder, hip, back, and other regions of his body while aboard a barge.

The barge in question is allegedly owned and controlled by American River Transportation Co. The loading process was purportedly under the control of this defendant as well. Material being loaded onto the barge was allowed to remain and collect on the deck, he claims. James blames the material as the reason he sustained his painful and debilitating maritime injuries.

The complainant identifies himself as a Jones Act seaman and invokes his claim in U.S. District Court under the Jones Act and General Maritime Law and Diversity.

What is the Jones Act and General Maritime Law?

The Jones Act was passed in the early part of the 20th century and was first known as the Merchant Marine Act of 1920. Among many key features of this act that has its roots early in the formation of our country are:

• The Jones Act allows seamen that have suffered maritime injuries to make legal claims and obtain compensation from their employers for the negligence of the shipowner, including many acts of the Captain or fellow crew members.
• It supports domestic port-to-port trade by requiring that seagoing vessels be built in the U.S., flagged in the U.S., at least 75 percent U.S. owned, and at least 75 percent crewed by U.S. sailors.
• By doing so, it supports approximately half a million jobs and generates $100 billion in domestic economic output by keeping U.S. regional coastal trade largely out of the hands of foreign companies

Regarding the plaintiff in this lawsuit, the identification of his right to assert claims against his employer is of prime importance. Prior to the creation of the Jones Act, a sailor had no legal recourse or monetary safeguard if they endured maritime injuries while at sea.

General maritime law also has its application to maritime injuries if such injuries occurred while a vessel was on water considered to be navigable. The determination of navigability is very specific and best left to an attorney who handles offshore injuries.

According to this lawsuit, the MS Danielle was at all applicable times—specifically the time of the accident—a vessel in navigation. The complainant is demanding a trial by jury and requesting past, present, and future medical expenses, lost wages, associated benefits, and wage earning ability.

James additionally requests compensation for mental anguish related to his injury and the return of all attorney and court expenses. Finally, he requests that punitive damages be assessed against the defendants.

The Maritime Injuries Lawsuit is Case No. 2:19-cv-01669-MLCF-DMD in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.