All maritime workers who qualify as seamen get special legal protection that goes along with unique benefits. Unseaworthiness claims and Jones Act claims are two remedies of the so-called ‘trinity of remedies’ for seamen injured on their job. Discover the differences and similarities between these two types of claims.

Unseaworthiness and Jones Act Claims: Differences

The unseaworthiness doctrine and Jones Act may overlap in some cases, but each of them requires specific proof and provides a distinct scope of recoverable damages to injured crewmen. 

Importantly, the causation standard for unseaworthiness is more strict than the same standard under the Jones Act. To prove the vessel was unseaworthy, you need to show that:

1. The vessel unseaworthiness played a substantial part in bringing about or causing the injury; and 

2. The injury was a direct result or reasonably probable result of the unseaworthiness. 

Notably, this is more strict than the “slight” causation standard under the Jones Act, which places a featherweight burden on seamen to provide even little evidence that they suffered an injury due to their employer’s negligence.

Unseaworthiness and Jones Act Claims: Similarities

A similar trait between the Jones Act and unseaworthiness claims is that they require you to have a seaman’s status. That means your duties would be tested against specific factors. For example, the court may dispute whether you have a substantial connection to a vessel or a fleet of vessels.

Your contributory negligence affects both remedies in the same way - it reduces the recoverable damages. The good news is that you can assert the two claims at the same time - one doesn’t exclude the other.

The seaworthiness of a ship includes many practical matters. Wonder what factors can make a vessel unseaworthy? Explore some examples of unseaworthiness often found in maritime personal injury cases.