Stewart, Willard v. Dutra Construction Company (02/22/2005)

Questions presented: What is the legal standard for determining whether a special purpose watercraft, such as a dredge, is a "vessel in navigation" for the purposes of considering an injured person a "seaman" under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. App., sec. 688(a)?BY STEPHEN BAXTER, MEDILL NEWS SERVICE

In the summer of 1993, Willard Stewart worked as a maritime engineer dredging the bottom of Boston Harbor as part of the city's enormous "Big Dig" construction project. His main duty was to maintain the engines that powered a clamshell scoop, and when one of those engines seized in early June, his crew had to haul it out and replace it.

As the crew lowered the new engine into place, Stewart knelt at the edge of an open hatch about ten feet above the engine, feeding some wires. Another ship working on the project suddenly jolted Stewart, sending him headfirst onto the engine and injuring him seriously.

Stewart sued San Rafael, Calif.-based Dutra Construction Co. in the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts. Stewart sued for negligence under the Jones Act and for worker's compensation under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Worker's Compensation Act, hoping that one of the two mutually exclusive statutes would cover him. That's where the trouble started.

The Jones Act of 1920 is a complex law written for "seamen" who work aboard "vessels in navigation," but generally not for "longshoremen" who work on stationary sites like oil platforms, docks, and maybe Stewart's dredge. People who work on the ocean want to be covered under it because it has a wide scope, letting workers sue for negligence in addition to tort damages, and generally netting more money.

Stewart's attorneys argued in District Court that Stewart is a "seaman" and his vessel, the Super Scoop, should be considered a vessel in navigation covered in the Jones Act. They noted that the Super Scoop routinely hauls heavy equipment across the harbor, making it a moving, navigating vessel.

Dutra's attorneys countered that the Super Scoop is not a vessel; it's just a work platform. Therefore Stewart is not a seaman, he's a longshoreman, and the company is not liable for him under the Jones Act.

U.S. District Judge Reginald Lindsay sided with Dutra. Stewart appealed to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, and that court affirmed the decision unanimously, citing the court's 1992 case DiGiovanni v. Traylor Bros., Inc.

In DiGiovanni, the 1st Circuit ruled, "if a barge, or other float's purpose or primary business is not navigation or commerce, then workers assigned thereto for its shore enterprise are to be considered seamen [for Jones Act purposes] only when it is in actual navigation or transit."

Maritime law experts like Michael Sturley, who filed the petition for certiorari, find that argument unconvincing. Just because the vessel wasn't moving at the moment of the accident, Sturley says, does not mean that Stewart suddenly became a longshoreman with fewer rights.

On Feb. 23, 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court accepted review in the case.

The Supreme Court took the case to sharpen the Jones Act law as it pertains to vessels and longshoremen, settling questions that have been raised in no fewer than eight federal circuit courts.

The case is of great significance to the 100,000 so-called "brown water" oil workers in the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere who today are unclear if the Jones Act covers their workplace injuries.

"There really is a lot riding on this," said John Hillsman of the University of San Francisco's Maritime Law Journal. If workers like Stewart are not covered under the Jones Act, Hillsman said, then they will be forced to file claims only under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Worker's Compensation Act, possibly doubling the Department of Labor's caseload without additional funding to handle it.

Employers and workers would both like to see clearer terms in the Jones Act, so injury claims wouldn't be so uncertain for both parties.

"With this decision," Hillsman said, "we can tie this up."

On Feb. 22, 2005, the Court issued its opinion, reversing 8-0 and holding that a dredge is a "vessel" under the Jones Act, and therefore Stewart is a seaman, entitled to damages for negligence. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion for the Court. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who had been ill during the period of time that the Court deliberated, did not participate in the decision.