If this guy was really looking for money, I think he would want more than $75,000. Surely he thinks his life is worth more than that. It appears he is just trying to get the company’s attention so they will take care of the safety issues.
How many times have you sailed a cargo ship as a part of a crew? Do you do that kind of work on the weekends when not working in your office!? Comparing enlisting in the army to working as a merchant marine is not a fair comparison. Maybe the guy has a point. I am not sure many of us office workers can know a thing about what he is burned up about. He has to work for a living too and he should expect his bosses to do everything in their power to keep the crew safe. Did you even read the whole article? Did you see how much he is suing for? It’s not much. Try to put yourself in the man’s position before you comment you know nothing about.
Trigger here is documented history of safety meeting recommendations and requests for a safer working environment.
Employees and Management on the same ship in the same meetings.
If there is documentation indicating requests went up the chain from the managers to the directors, it will be found in discovery and then the entire system can count on a shake up in regards to ship security in foreign seas as the entire board of directors faces the music from employees AND stockholders.
Quite possible this is the intent in bringing the suit with such a low monetary component.
Personally, I give Maersk 1 chance in 1,000 to get this thrown out.
It was the pirates fault. The shipping company is not allowed to defend itself. All they need is one M16 but they can not have one. He needs to sue the pirate.
Sorry Sailer but you’re wrong (and it’s SailOr by the way). I should ask you to tie me a sheepshank! :)
The shipping company is allowed to deploy security measures such as water cannons, flares, etc. They are also allowed to build safety areas within their vessels and to provide better technology such as personal locator beacons, communication devices, etc.
These things are being implemented by various carriers throughout the Indian Ocean and Arabian Sea.
The Jones Act
The Jones Act permits injured seamen to seek compensation for injuries resulting from the negligence of their employers or co-workers during the course of their employment on a vessel. As any seaman knows, a ship can be a very dangerous place to work. The Jones Act reflects that reality of maritime work, and a seaman’s employer may be liable for even a small breach of duty which contributes to a seaman’s injury. This is true, even where a seaman performs dangerous work while aware of the high risks involved in the work.
In addition to compensation for injuries cause by negligence, an injured seaman may also make a claim against the vessel’s owner on the basis that the vessel was not seaworthy. An employer may also be liable for failing to provide a seaman with adequate medical care.
Jones Act litigation seeks to recover damages for both past and future economic and non-economic losses.
Unseaworthy Vessels
The owner of a vessel owes a seaman an absolute duty to provide a seaworthy vessel. The mere fact that a vessel is not in imminent danger of sinking does not mean that it is “seaworthy”. A vessel is seaworthy if it is reasonably fit for its intended use, is equipped with appropriate equipment and safety gear, has a competent crew, and is a safe place to live and work. Even where a vessel is seaworthy when it leaves shore, it can become unseaworthy on the basis of dangers which arise or are created during its voyage. A claim that a vessel is not seaworthy is often brought at the same time as a Jones Act claim.
Maintenance and Cure
When a seaman is injured on a vessel, regardless of who is at fault, the seaman has a legal right to “maintenance and cure” – benefits similar to those available through traditional “workers’ compensation” law. “Maintenance” takes the form of a daily allowance, usually about $10 to $40 per day, to cover the food and shelter the injured seaman would have received aboard the vessel had the injury not occurred. “Cure” represents the empoyer’s obligation to provide an injured seaman with appropriate medical care, hospitalization, and rehabilitation services, until the injured seaman reaches maximum medical improvement. (Please note that the obligation to provide maintenance and cure ends when the seaman reaches maximum medical improvement, even if the seaman will never fully recover from his injuries, and will never be able to return to work.)
An injured seaman has an absolute right to maintenance and cure, apart from any Jones Act claim. If a seaman has a valid Jones Act claim, the seaman may be able to recover a very substantial award of damages in addition to obtaining full benefits of maintenance and cure.
Maritime workers who are not seamen may be eligible for compensation under The Longshore and Harbor Worker’s Compensation Act.
Under certain circumstances, such as when a seaman’s injury is caused by an employee of an independent contractor aboard a vessel, it may be possible to pursue a cause of action against that independent contractor in addition to the Jones Act claim. A qualified attorney will help an injured seaman identify all possible sources of recovery.
well, if you have informed us of the rights, sounds like he will not get any at all…afterall, he was not injured!
they were told where to go for protection as they did! …. so where’s the issue?
sounds to me like someone just wants to put a name out on the board and not take responsibility of knowing the risk of being a seaman… of course the true act of the jones act is basic hospital care
Let’s face it: He
hired a liar…er- I mean lawyer and the shyster says, ” I smell gelt”..Lets go for it, kaaka !”
Look guys: -whether it’s the merchant of venice or his buddy, Madoff..-I mean really..has ANYTHING changed in the last 2000 years w/those peeps
Gee MLG, thanks for the spell check but I meant to spell it that way. Sorry you did no get it. Lets see, a pressure washer against machines guns. Wow, thats an even fight. Until they allow these ships to seriously defend themselves, they are sitting ducks. When the surviving pirate sues will you support that as well?
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
If this guy was really looking for money, I think he would want more than $75,000. Surely he thinks his life is worth more than that. It appears he is just trying to get the company’s attention so they will take care of the safety issues.
How many times have you sailed a cargo ship as a part of a crew? Do you do that kind of work on the weekends when not working in your office!? Comparing enlisting in the army to working as a merchant marine is not a fair comparison. Maybe the guy has a point. I am not sure many of us office workers can know a thing about what he is burned up about. He has to work for a living too and he should expect his bosses to do everything in their power to keep the crew safe. Did you even read the whole article? Did you see how much he is suing for? It’s not much. Try to put yourself in the man’s position before you comment you know nothing about.
Shaking my head at WUD……
Trigger here is documented history of safety meeting recommendations and requests for a safer working environment.
Employees and Management on the same ship in the same meetings.
If there is documentation indicating requests went up the chain from the managers to the directors, it will be found in discovery and then the entire system can count on a shake up in regards to ship security in foreign seas as the entire board of directors faces the music from employees AND stockholders.
Quite possible this is the intent in bringing the suit with such a low monetary component.
Personally, I give Maersk 1 chance in 1,000 to get this thrown out.
It was the pirates fault. The shipping company is not allowed to defend itself. All they need is one M16 but they can not have one. He needs to sue the pirate.
The $75,000 is a minimum amount that is required to be listed in the intitial lawsuit. It is just basically placeholding language.
Rest assured, this guy has his hand out for much more than $75,000.
Who is the real pirate in this incident?
Sorry Sailer but you’re wrong (and it’s SailOr by the way). I should ask you to tie me a sheepshank! :)
The shipping company is allowed to deploy security measures such as water cannons, flares, etc. They are also allowed to build safety areas within their vessels and to provide better technology such as personal locator beacons, communication devices, etc.
These things are being implemented by various carriers throughout the Indian Ocean and Arabian Sea.
Any one ever hear of:
The Jones Act
The Jones Act permits injured seamen to seek compensation for injuries resulting from the negligence of their employers or co-workers during the course of their employment on a vessel. As any seaman knows, a ship can be a very dangerous place to work. The Jones Act reflects that reality of maritime work, and a seaman’s employer may be liable for even a small breach of duty which contributes to a seaman’s injury. This is true, even where a seaman performs dangerous work while aware of the high risks involved in the work.
In addition to compensation for injuries cause by negligence, an injured seaman may also make a claim against the vessel’s owner on the basis that the vessel was not seaworthy. An employer may also be liable for failing to provide a seaman with adequate medical care.
Jones Act litigation seeks to recover damages for both past and future economic and non-economic losses.
Unseaworthy Vessels
The owner of a vessel owes a seaman an absolute duty to provide a seaworthy vessel. The mere fact that a vessel is not in imminent danger of sinking does not mean that it is “seaworthy”. A vessel is seaworthy if it is reasonably fit for its intended use, is equipped with appropriate equipment and safety gear, has a competent crew, and is a safe place to live and work. Even where a vessel is seaworthy when it leaves shore, it can become unseaworthy on the basis of dangers which arise or are created during its voyage. A claim that a vessel is not seaworthy is often brought at the same time as a Jones Act claim.
Maintenance and Cure
When a seaman is injured on a vessel, regardless of who is at fault, the seaman has a legal right to “maintenance and cure” – benefits similar to those available through traditional “workers’ compensation” law. “Maintenance” takes the form of a daily allowance, usually about $10 to $40 per day, to cover the food and shelter the injured seaman would have received aboard the vessel had the injury not occurred. “Cure” represents the empoyer’s obligation to provide an injured seaman with appropriate medical care, hospitalization, and rehabilitation services, until the injured seaman reaches maximum medical improvement. (Please note that the obligation to provide maintenance and cure ends when the seaman reaches maximum medical improvement, even if the seaman will never fully recover from his injuries, and will never be able to return to work.)
An injured seaman has an absolute right to maintenance and cure, apart from any Jones Act claim. If a seaman has a valid Jones Act claim, the seaman may be able to recover a very substantial award of damages in addition to obtaining full benefits of maintenance and cure.
Maritime workers who are not seamen may be eligible for compensation under The Longshore and Harbor Worker’s Compensation Act.
Under certain circumstances, such as when a seaman’s injury is caused by an employee of an independent contractor aboard a vessel, it may be possible to pursue a cause of action against that independent contractor in addition to the Jones Act claim. A qualified attorney will help an injured seaman identify all possible sources of recovery.
well, if you have informed us of the rights, sounds like he will not get any at all…afterall, he was not injured!
they were told where to go for protection as they did! …. so where’s the issue?
sounds to me like someone just wants to put a name out on the board and not take responsibility of knowing the risk of being a seaman… of course the true act of the jones act is basic hospital care
Let’s face it: He
hired a liar…er- I mean lawyer and the shyster says, ” I smell gelt”..Lets go for it, kaaka !”
Look guys: -whether it’s the merchant of venice or his buddy, Madoff..-I mean really..has ANYTHING changed in the last 2000 years w/those peeps
Gee MLG, thanks for the spell check but I meant to spell it that way. Sorry you did no get it. Lets see, a pressure washer against machines guns. Wow, thats an even fight. Until they allow these ships to seriously defend themselves, they are sitting ducks. When the surviving pirate sues will you support that as well?