S., at 348, and that seaman status depends "not on the place where the injury is inflicted. The term "seaman." However, the Court's Jones Act cases establish the basic principles that the term does not include land-based workers, 498 U. (a) The Jones Act provides heightened legal protections to seamen because of their exposure to the perils of the sea, but does not define The "employment-related connection to a vessel in navigation" necessary for seaman status comprises two basic elements: The worker's duties must contribute to the function of the vessel or to the accomplishment of its mission, id., at 355, and the worker must have a connection to a vessel in navigation (or an identifiable group of vessels) that is substantial in both its duration and its nature. It also found that the District Court erred in instructing the jury that the Galileo's drydock time could not count in the substantial connection equation.ฤก. 337, 355, exists where an individual contributes to a vessel's function or the accomplishment of its mission the contribution is limited to a particular vessel or identifiable group of vessels the contribution is substantial in terms of its duration or nature and the course of the individual's employment regularly exposes him to the hazards of the sea. It held that the "employmentrelated connection to a vessel in navigation" required for seaman status under the Jones Act, McDermott Int'l, Inc. The Court of Appeals vacated the judgment, finding that the jury instruction improperly framed the issue primarily in terms of Latsis' temporal relationship to the vessel. The jury returned a verdict for Chandris based solely on Latsis' seaman status. Subsequently, he sued Chandris for damages for his eye injury under the Jones Act, which provides a negligence cause of action for "any seaman" injured "in the course of his employment." The District Court instructed the jury that Latsis was a "seaman" if he was permanently assigned to, or performed a substantial part of his work on, a vessel, but that the time Latsis spent with the Galileo while it was in drydock could not be considered because the vessel was then out of navigation. ![]() Galileo and stayed with the ship while it was in drydock for refurbishment. ![]() Following his recuperation, he sailed to Germany on the S. ![]() He lost substantial vision in one eye after a condition that he developed while on one of those voyages went untreated by a ship's doctor. Respondent Latsis' duties as a superintendent engineer for petitioner Chandris, Inc., required him to take voyages on Chandris' ships. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |