You can find last week’s edition here »

Steamboats at Colman Dock, Seattle, WA, circa 1912 – The Puget Sound Mosquito Fleet was a large number of private transportation companies running small passenger and freight boats around on Puget Sound, nearby waterways, and rivers. This large group of steamers and sternwheelers stopped at every waterfront dock. The historical peak of activity occurred between the first and second World Wars. Click image to see full size. 

Steamer Virginia V, last of Puget Sound Mosquito Fleet – now one of the historic fleet of NW Seaport, South Lake Union Park, Seattle, Washington, USA. Listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The boat has city landmark status.  Steamer Virginia V’s website »

Cade Candies – boat being built at Dakota Creek Shipyard in Anacortes for the Otto Candies company of Des Allemands, LA. – from flickr 

• See Bitter End’s Collection of pics and posts on other Otto Candies builds »

[Continue Reading →]

This is a huge decision that protects the injured seamen.

Sometimes, out of economic neccessity, an injured seamen is forced to return to some work while still injured or recovering due to an employer failing to pay maintenence and medical cure.  In many cases, returning to work negatively effects the seamens later claim against the employer.  Following the Supreme Court ruling laid out below, the employer will be held liable for punitive damages to the injured seamen when they refuse to pay for medical care and time off.  Here is a press release explaining the courts decision.

Significant Decision Impacting Seamen’s Right to Receive Punitive Damages for Employers’ Disregard of Maintenance and Cure Payments

On Thursday, June 25th, the United States Supreme Court decided a case styled Atlantic Sounding Co., Inc. et al. v Edgar L. Townsend 2009 WL 1789469 (U.S. June 25, 2009).  This case marked the Supreme Court’s decision to protect a seaman’s right to receive damages for an employers’ willful and wanton disregard of a maintenance and cure obligation.

Petitioners allegedly refused to pay maintenance and cure to respondent Townsend for injuries he suffered while working on its tugboat. Townsend filed suit under the Jones Act and general maritime law, alleging arbitrary and willful failure to provide maintenance and cure. He filed similar counterclaims in the declaratory judgment action, seeking punitive damages for the maintenance and cure claim.

The District Court denied petitioners’ motion to dismiss the punitive damages claim, but certified the question for interlocutory appeal. Following its precedent, the Eleventh Circuit held that punitive damages may be awarded for the willful withholding of maintenance and cure.

At issue in the Townsend case was whether an injured seaman may recover punitive damages for his employer’s willful failure to pay maintenance and cure. [Continue Reading →]

To help us answer some of the questions we have been hearing regarding the Maersk Alabama crew member that is suing the ship owner, gCaptain contacted Jones Act attorney, gCaptain sponsor and, most notably, gCaptain member Steve Gordon to help us understand the legal principles behind this claim. He responded with the following email:

Dear gCaptain,

Today, in the 270th Judicial District Court in Houston, Harris County, Texas a lawsuit (case 2009-26129) was filed on behalf of Mr. Richard Hicks, a steward on board the Maersk Alabama. The suit alleges that Maesrk was negligent and that the Maersk Alabama was “unseaworthy” as that term is defined by federal maritime law. If you practice maritime law, you knew this was inevitable. We all know the facts as Captain Phillips’ plight was plastered over our televisions over Easter weekend and we all prayed for his safe return. However, it is not Captain Phillips who is suing Maersk. It is, instead, another crewmember who was on board the Maersk. Without personally commenting on the viability of Mr. Hicks’ claim, I would like to generally address the liability of a Jones Act employer, such as Maersk is, in situations such as this. [Continue Reading →]

The Guardian tells us:

A Chinese cargo ship believed to be carrying 77 tonnes of small arms, including more than 3m rounds of ammunition, AK47 assault rifles, mortars and rocket-propelled grenades, has docked in the South African port of Durban for transportation of the weapons to Zimbabwe, the South African government confirmed yesterday. It claimed it was powerless to intervene as long as the ship’s papers were in order.

Copies of the documentation for the Chinese ship, the An Yue Jiang, show that the weapons were sent from Beijing to the ministry of defence in Harare. Headed “Dangerous goods description and container packing certificate”, the document was issued on April 1, three days after Zimbabwe’s election. It lists the consignment as including 3.5m rounds of ammunition for AK47 assault rifles and for small arms, 1,500 40mm rockets, 2,500 mortar shells of 60mm and 81mm calibre, as well as 93 cases of mortar tubes.

The carrier is listed as the Cosco shipping company in China.

The structure of shipping companies is a complicated one. Each vessel must be registered (flagged), insured, classed, managed and crewed. For reasons of liability, tax avoidance, media relations and general profit motives ship owners will often use purpose build corporations with storefronts located in the countries offering the best terms or amicable laws. The end result is purpose built complexity. This is the reason why the Cosco is not liable for the clean-up of oil spilt by the Cosco Busan and will likely deny ties to the shipment of these arms. To find the truth would require a large scale investigation well beyond the scope of this blog, or even a well funded news group.

The law of general average is a legal principle of maritime law according to which all parties in a sea venture proportionally share any losses resulting from a voluntary sacrifice of part of the ship or cargo to save the whole in an emergency.In the exigencies of hazards faced at sea, crewmembers often have precious little time in which to determine precisely whose cargo they are jettisoning. Thus, to avoid quarreling that could waste valuable time, there arose the equitable practice whereby all the merchants whose cargo was on board would be called on to contribute a portion, based upon a share or percentage, to the merchant or merchants whose goods had been tossed overboard to avert imminent peril.

Source: Wikipedia

Our favorite new industry blog MarineBuzz.com brings us news of a new way to avoid the courts and reduce Admiralty Lawyers fees with Maritime Arbitration. They tell us:

Good news for the Shipping companies in the USA.Settlement of marine disputes through courts is a cumbersome process. THE MARITIME ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES (MAA) is the national organization of the maritime community for alternative dispute resolution. Alternative dispute resolution (ADR), including arbitration and mediation, is faster and less expensive than courtroom litigation.

1.The Maritime Arbitration Association of the United States (MAA):

• As a nonprofit organization, the MAA educates the maritime community about ADR and administers cases under its Rules. Maritime disputes require specialized legal expertise. The MAA is the only national ADR organization whose arbitrators and mediators are maritime lawyers. They are peer-reviewed for the highest standards of ethics, impartiality and competence. To ensure predictability and fairness, cases are handled in appropriate U.S. venues, rather than distant cities or foreign countries.
• The MAA helps achieve the fair and just resolution of maritime disputes, whether they are related to cargo, marinas, passengers, shipyards, or vessels.

To continues reading their article CLICK HERE then head over to the homepage for other great stories: MarineBuzz.com