Maritime Law Rulings

U.S. SUPREME COURT CONFIRMS JONES ACT RIGHTS

Supreme Court Confirms Jones Act Seamens' Maintenance and Cure Rights

On June 25, 2009, the United States Supreme Court confirmed the rights of Jones Act seamen.

In Atlantic Sounding, Inc. v. Townsend, 2009 LEXIS 4732, the Court affirmed the decision of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, holding that punitive damages are recoverable where the Jones Act employer’s conduct in withholding Maintenance and Cure benefits is willful and arbitrary.

GRAVING DOCK IS WITHIN NAVIGABLE WATERS AND SUPPORTS ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION OVER WELDER'S DEATH CLAIMS

In a case decided on September 15, 2009, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (federal appeals court) held that a graving dock is within navigable waters of the United States. Vasquez v. GMD Shipyard Corp., 582 F.3d 293 (2d Cir. 2009).

Medina was a welder working for a subcontractor on a refit of a tank barge situated in a graving dock. He died while attempting to ascend one of two ladders to adjust a regulator for his torch.

One of the defenses raised by the general contractor was a lack of admiralty jurisdiction, on two grounds: (1) that a graving dock is not navigable waters; and (2) refit of a barge is not a traditional maritime activity which has a potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce.

The Second Circuit rejected the general contractor’s arguments and found that admiralty jurisdiction was present:

“Medina's fall occurred while the ATC 23 was being repaired in a "graving dock." A graving dock is "a permanent structure on land with gates that allow vessels to enter and that then can be closed to drain out the water. In other words, it is a dry drydock." San Francisco Drydock, Inc. v. Dalton, 131 F.3d 776, 777 (9th Cir. 1997); see also J.M.L. Trading Corp. v. Marine Salvage Corp., 501 F. Supp. 323, 326 n.2 (E.D.N.Y. 1980) ("A graving dock looks like a huge, concrete bathtub sunk into the ground . . . . When repairs are completed, workers flood the dock until the water reaches the same level as the water outside the gate. It is opened and the ship leaves."). There are three types of dry docks: "(1) A floating dry dock, as its name makes clear, floats on the water, the vessel resting on the bottom of the dry dock after the water has been removed. (2) A graven dry dock is dug into the land. The vessel floats in but rests on land once the water has been pumped out. (3) Finally there is the marine railway, on which the vessel is drawn out of the water, instead of the water being drawn away from the vessel." Avondale Marine Ways v. Henderson, 346 U.S. 366, 367, 74 S. Ct. 100, 98 L. Ed. 77 (1953) (Burton, J., concurring).

The water in a graving (or graven) dock is temporarily removed so that a ship under repair comes to rest on dry land, but the temporary absence of water does not defeat federal maritime jurisdiction. In The Robert W. Parsons, 191 U.S. 17, 33-34, 24 S. Ct. 8, 48 L. Ed. 73 (1903), the Supreme Court held that a vessel in a "graven dock" remains in navigable waters for purposes of admiralty jurisdiction, even when the water is removed: "as all serious repairs upon the hulls of vessels are made in drydock, the proposition that such repairs are made on land would practically deprive the admiralty courts of their largest and most important jurisdiction in connection with repairs. No authorities are cited for this proposition, and it is believed that none such exist." Id.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the point in Simmons v. The Steamship Jefferson, in which it compared a ship in a graven dock to one at a pier when the water temporarily recedes at low tide:

In reason, we think it cannot be held that a ship or vessel employed in navigation and commerce is any the less a maritime subject within the admiralty jurisdiction when, for the purpose of making necessary repairs to fit her for continuance in navigation, she is placed in a dry dock and the water removed from about her, than would be such a vessel if fastened to a wharf in a dry harbor, where, by the natural recession of the water by the ebbing of the tide, she for a time might be upon dry land.

215 U.S. 130, 142, 30 S. Ct. 54, 54 L. Ed. 125 (1909). See also In re Paradise Holdings, Inc., 795 F.2d 756, 759 (9th Cir. 1986) (admiralty jurisdiction extends to shallow, non-navigable waters that are within the ebb and flow of the tide); Hassinger v. Tideland Elec. Membership Corp., 781 F.2d 1022, 1026 (4th Cir. 1986) ("Admiralty jurisdiction in America therefore extends to all areas within the ebb and flow of the tide, regardless of whether those areas are actually covered by water at the time of the alleged event.").

We have no reason to question the currency of The Robert W. Parsons and The Steampship Jefferson. These cases "may be old, but they are old precedent, and we are bound to follow them." Sea Vessel, Inc. v. Reyes, 23 F.3d 345, 348-49 (11th Cir. 1994). In Sea Vessel, for instance, the Eleventh Circuit found "no authority that would compel this court to question the[ir] continued vitality," and concluded that a ship in a dry dock is "in or on navigable waters for purposes of admiralty jurisdiction." Id. As the Eleventh Circuit concluded: Supreme Court precedent, common practice, and logic all compel the conclusion that a ship in a "graving" or "graven" dock is still in "navigable waters" for purposes of federal admiralty jurisdiction even though water may have been temporarily removed.”

Vasquez v. GMD Shipyard Corp., 582 F.3d 293, 298-99 (2d Cir. 2009) (bold added).

Located in Savannah, Raley & Raley, PC works with clients throughout the coastal area of South Carolina and Georgia. Contact our office to speak to one of our experienced maritime personal injury lawyers.