Yes, in some circumstances. A Jones Act seaman does not lose the protections of federal maritime law simply because an accident happens on a highway instead of aboard a vessel. A seaman who is driving to a port to begin a hitch can potentially have a claim against the employer if the travel was sufficiently connected to the employment and the employer’s negligence caused or contributed to the accident.
The harder question is whether the drive to the vessel was part of the seaman’s employment or merely an ordinary commute. Courts look beyond the location of the accident and examine why the seaman was traveling, who arranged the transportation, whether the employer paid for or controlled the trip, and whether the transportation served the employer’s operational needs.
That means two seamen injured in nearly identical automobile accidents can have very different legal rights. A seaman riding in a company vehicle from an employer-designated crew-change point to the vessel presents a much stronger Jones Act case than a seaman driving his own vehicle from home to the port on a route and schedule entirely of his own choosing.
For an injured maritime worker, determining whether the trip was part of the employment can affect not only a negligence claim against the employer, but also the right to maintenance and cure and any separate claim against the motorist who caused the crash.
When Is Driving to the Vessel Part of a Seaman’s Employment?
The Jones Act allows a seaman injured in the course of employment to pursue a negligence claim against the employer. The injury does not have to occur aboard the vessel. Courts have long recognized that seamen sometimes remain within the course of their maritime employment while performing duties or traveling ashore.
A Jones Act Claim arising from a highway accident therefore turns heavily on the relationship between the trip and the employer’s business. The fact that the seaman had not yet stepped onto the vessel does not automatically defeat the claim. The real issue is whether the travel itself had become part of the job.
The Fifth Circuit’s decision in Vincent v. Harvey Well Service, 441 F.2d 146 (5th Cir. 1971), provides an important example. The seaman worked aboard a drilling rig and was injured in an automobile provided by the employer and driven by another employee. The company used the vehicle to transport workers between a metropolitan gathering point and the pier where they traveled to and from the rig. The Fifth Circuit concluded that the transportation served substantial employer interests and that the seaman was acting in the course of his employment.
Similarly, in Magnolia Towing Co. v. Pace, 378 F.2d 12 (5th Cir. 1967), a vessel pilot was ordered to report for work and was injured while being transported toward the vessel in a company-owned automobile driven by another employee. The court treated the travel as sufficiently connected to his employment even though the injury occurred on land.
Those cases show why employer involvement in transportation is so important. Factors supporting Jones Act coverage can include an employer-provided vehicle, an employer-selected driver, a required crew-change location, transportation arranged by the company, payment for travel time, a company requirement that the seaman travel from a designated location to the vessel, or other circumstances showing that the transportation was part of getting the crew to the vessel.
Remote ports and offshore crew changes can make those facts particularly important. If an employer gathers a crew at one location and transports the workers several hours to a dock, heliport, or crew boat, that transportation can serve an obvious business purpose. The employer needs the crew to reach the vessel at the required time and place, and the transportation arrangement can become part of the employment relationship rather than an ordinary commute.
An Ordinary Commute Does Not Automatically Create Employer Liability
The opposite result can occur when the employer has little or no involvement in the seaman’s transportation.
In Broussard v. Marine Transport Lines, Inc., 369 F. Supp. 103 (E.D. Tex. 1974), a federal court rejected a Jones Act negligence claim arising from an automobile accident where the employer did not provide the vehicle or driver and the seaman selected his own transportation. The court distinguished cases such as Vincent, where the employer had furnished and controlled the transportation.
That illustrates an important limit. Simply being a Jones Act seaman does not make the employer responsible for every car accident that occurs while the worker is headed toward the vessel. If the worker leaves home in a personal vehicle, selects the route, pays all travel expenses, and receives no travel pay or transportation from the employer, the trip looks much more like an ordinary commute.
The analysis can change when additional facts connect the travel to the job. For example, a company might require the seaman to report first to a crew-change facility rather than directly to the vessel. The company might provide transportation for part of the journey, reimburse travel expenses, pay travel time, or direct the worker to travel to a remote port specifically to join a vessel at another location.
No single factor necessarily controls every case. The overall question is whether the travel was sufficiently connected to the employer’s operations that the seaman remained in the course of employment.
Even when the travel qualifies, the seaman must still establish negligence to recover damages under the Jones Act. The employer’s negligence must have played some part in causing the injury. Questions of causation therefore remain separate from the question of whether the seaman was in the course of employment.
If a coworker driving a company vehicle negligently causes the wreck, the connection to employer negligence can be direct. If an unrelated motorist runs a red light and hits a seaman driving his personal vehicle to work, establishing Jones Act negligence against the maritime employer becomes much more difficult unless some separate act by the employer contributed to the collision or injury.
What If Another Driver Caused the Accident?
A seaman injured while traveling to port should not view the situation as an either-or choice between maritime law and an automobile claim.
If another motorist caused the collision, the seaman can potentially pursue a claim against that driver or another responsible third party. Third-party liability is especially important when the maritime employer did not cause the crash but the seaman was traveling as part of his employment.
Consider a crew member riding in transportation provided by the employer when another commercial vehicle crosses the center line and causes a collision. The seaman could potentially have maritime rights arising from his employment while also pursuing the outside driver or company responsible for causing the wreck.
The facts surrounding the transportation arrangement therefore become important evidence. Employment records, crew-change instructions, travel reimbursement records, company transportation policies, text messages directing the seaman where and when to report, and information identifying who provided the vehicle can help establish whether the trip was part of the employment.
The automobile investigation remains important as well. An accident report can identify the drivers and vehicles involved, document the initial accounts of the collision, and provide information about citations, witnesses, and insurance coverage.
A seaman who suffers disabling injuries can also face losses extending well beyond the immediate medical bills. If the injuries prevent the worker from returning to offshore or vessel employment, a claim can include substantial loss of earning capacity, particularly when maritime work paid substantially more than available shoreside employment.
Maintenance and Cure Is a Separate Question
A seaman injured in an automobile accident should also consider maintenance and cure, even when there is a dispute over whether the employer was negligent.
Maintenance and cure is different from a Jones Act negligence claim because the seaman generally does not have to prove that the employer caused the injury. The central question is whether the seaman became injured or ill while in the service of the vessel.
Courts have recognized maintenance and cure rights in some commuting cases where transportation was part of the seaman’s work arrangement. In Vincent, the employer-provided transportation supported maritime coverage. In Williamson v. Western Pacific Dredging Corp., 441 F.2d 65 (9th Cir. 1971), a seaman injured while driving his own vehicle was found to be within the maritime employment relationship where commuting was treated as part of his job and he was paid for the travel time.
Those cases do not mean every drive from home to the dock qualifies. A purely personal commute with no meaningful connection to the employer’s transportation arrangements presents a different situation. The exact facts surrounding the hitch, reporting location, travel instructions, compensation, and employer control should therefore be examined before assuming maintenance and cure does or does not apply.
This distinction can be especially important when an unrelated driver caused the wreck. The maritime employer might have no Jones Act negligence exposure for the automobile collision, while the seaman could still have a separate claim against the negligent motorist and potentially a maintenance and cure claim against the employer if the travel was sufficiently connected to the service of the vessel.
Speak With a Maritime Injury Attorney About an Accident on the Way to a Vessel
Whether a Jones Act seaman can recover from an employer after a highway accident depends heavily on the transportation arrangement. Employer-provided transportation, paid travel time, required gathering points, company drivers, remote crew changes, and specific travel instructions can all strengthen the connection between the trip and the seaman’s employment.
Spagnoletti Law Firm represents seamen and other maritime workers injured aboard vessels, during crew changes, and while traveling in connection with maritime employment. Our maritime injury lawyers can evaluate whether the accident falls within the Jones Act, whether maintenance and cure is owed, and whether additional claims exist against another driver or company.
We offer a free consultation to discuss a maritime injury and the legal options that may be available. Our firm represents clients on a contingency fee basis, meaning clients do not pay attorney’s fees unless we obtain a recovery.
If you were injured while traveling to or from a vessel, call Spagnoletti Law Firm at 713-804-9306 or contact us online.