In a challenging legal dispute, a yachtie working aboard a sailing yacht asserted he sustained injuries aboard due to a defective hatch, raising questions about his status as a Jones Act "seaman" and his entitlement to remedies under the Act.  The complexity arose because the incident occurred while the yacht was on land for temporary repairs, leading to debates about the applicability of the Jones Act in this context.  The yacht owner challenged seaman status, suggesting the case lacks federal jurisdiction and should be addressed under state tort law if Jones Act remedies are not applicable.

The Court's review underscored the intricacy of determining seaman status, emphasizing it as a mixed question of law and fact.  The Supreme Court outlined criteria for seaman status, focusing on an employment-related connection to a vessel in navigation and the contribution to the vessel's function or mission.  The yacht's condition at the time of injury -- on land for repairs -- complicated the determination of its "in navigation" status, a crucial element for Jones Act applicability.

Ultimately, the Court refused to dismiss the lawsuit, agreeing with maritime lawyer John Fulweiler (representing the injured crewmember) that further exploration of the facts was needed regarding the seaman's role and duties aboard the yacht to ascertain his connection to the vessel and the nature of its mission at the time of injury.  

The Court's decision to deny the motion to dismiss and order discovery on these jurisdictional issues highlights the nuanced legal landscape surrounding maritime injuries and the Jones Act.  This case serves as a pivotal exploration of the boundaries of seaman status and federal jurisdiction in maritime law, potentially setting a precedent for future disputes involving injuries on vessels temporarily out of water -- and certainly making clear injured crew need skilled maritime lawyers riding shotgun! 

-- Fulweiler llc

1-800-383-MAYDAY (6292)