Contact us today for a free consultation about your legal needs.

The injury occurred while the plaintiff and other crew members were aboard the vessel Hercules while the vessel rested within a protected boat slip, yet on navigable waters. The task at hand was using rigging designed and manufactured by the defendant. Tests of the rigging were being performed pursuant to job requirements set out for a project to lift and hold some 2,000 tons on-site in the Gulf of Mexico.
A third-party barge was requisitioned and ballasted with water in preparation for the simulated lift test. Two lifts were performed successfully before crew expressed concern that the barge had not been sufficiently ballasted. Engineers re-checked the calculations, confirmed they were correct, and proceeded with a third lift.
The barge was being held aloft during the third lift when certain rigging equipment failed, leading one side of the lift barge to drop back into the water. Debris was scattered, causing injury to the plaintiff’s hand and leg.
As the action was on the eve of trial in the plaintiff’s ensuing personal injury suit, the plaintiff settled with his employer. The defendant rigging manufacturer then demanded a jury trial. This raised the issue whether the plaintiff’s activity at the time of injury was so closely related to activity traditionally subject to admiralty jurisdiction that admiralty law should apply, with the result that no jury trial right would exist.
The court ruled that this was the case. The incident that gave rise to the plaintiff’s injury was not merely “fortuitously and incidentally connected” to admiralty in such a way that it bore no relationship to traditional maritime activity. Rather, the court said, the injuries alleged by the employee fell within the type that occurred in maritime settings. Specifically, the plaintiff’s employer was testing a rigging device constructed by the manufacturer for use in anticipated offshore lifts. That intended use was clearly known to the manufacturer, namely that its product was intended for offshore rather than land-based lifting. Thus the court found that the evidence supported the findings that the manufacturer’s tortious activity had a potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce and was substantially related to traditional maritime activity.
The end result: the plaintiff was a “seaman,” the court had jurisdiction over all claims pursuant to the Jones Act and the General Maritime Law, and no jury trial was warranted.
The court went on to conclude that the plaintiff suffered some $1.9 million in damages due to his maritime personal injury during the failed rigging test.
The Voss Law Firm, P.C. represents clients on a local, national and international basis. We proudly serve all Texas counties and cities including but not limited to the following: Harris County, Montgomery County, Jefferson County, Houston, The Woodlands, Beaumont, El Paso, San Antonio, Austin, Sugar Land, Dallas, Fort Worth, Orange, and Port Arthur, as well as companies and individuals along the Gulf Coast and around the globe.