Lawmaker Vows to Tighten Jones Act

Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., intends to introduce a bill to improve Coast Guard enforcement of the vessel construction requirements of the Jones Act, his staff said Friday afternoon.

During House debate of the 2010 Coast Guard appropriations bill, Taylor offered an amendment that would have set statutory limits on the amount of steel that could be used by a foreign shipyard to repair or rebuild a Jones Act-eligible ship. The House voted the amendment out of order.

According to Stephen Paranich, Taylor's chief of staff, members of the House Ways and Means staff objected to the amendment based on concerns raised by the U.S. Trade Representative. The USTR worried that the changes in the Jones Act would trigger a review of the law by the World Trade Organization.

The Jones Act, which has been the foundation of U.S. domestic maritime policy since the 1920s, requires ships operating between U.S. ports to be owned and manned by U.S. citizens, and built in the United States. The law was grandfathered when the United States adopted the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the WTO's predecessor.

Paranich said that Taylor's amendment had been drafted with the assistance of the Coast Guard. Repairs or rebuilds of Jones Act ships in foreign shipyards are managed by regulation by the Coast Guard's National Vessel Documentation Center.

In June 2008, Taylor held hearings about the Coast Guard's regulatory practice after the agency gave the go-ahead to Matson Navigation and Seabulk to have substantial construction on their ships done at shipyards in China. He called the Coast Guard's approval of the projects "a screw-up.

The Jones Act in Hawaii: Is Hanabusa or Case Right About O'Keefe?

Wayne Parsons

Malia Zimmerman of The Hawaii Reporter reports on 20 October 2009 that a ""Jones Act Lawsuit Will Test Control of Hawaii's Shipping Monopoly".Jones Act Lawsuit Will Test Control of Hawaii's Shipping Monopoly". Her story is about a bread maker in Hilo who claims that he had to pay $5.50 to ship a 50 lb. bag of flour to Hilo from the mainland and that the cost ruined his busines 

New Hawaii Lawsuit - Constitutional Challenge to Jones Act

Several Hawaii residents and businesses have brought suit against the federal government challenging the constitutionality of the "Jones Act."  The complaint can be downloaded here.

The suit notes that because the Jones Act requires cargo to be transported on U.S. flagged ships between U.S. ports, Hawaii residents pay more for their goods.  It purports to be class action on behalf of all persons impacted by the Jones Act's application to Hawaii maritime trade.

The complaint alleges claims under Art. I, Section 8 of the Constitution; 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57.  There may be some jurisdictional problems with these claims, so it will be interesting to see if the plaintiffs can survive the government's inevitable motion to dismiss.

Punitive damages for maritime claims

Timothy Young

September 17, 2009

In a most recent United States Supreme Court maritime decision, it was ruled that injured seamen could be awarded punitive damages in addition to their maintenance and cure damages. Maintenance is the cost of lodging a person on the boat (food, room and board) after they have been injured. Care is the on-site medical attention received post-injury.

Edgar Townsend was a seaman and crewmember of the Motor Tug Thomas. He injured his arm and shoulder by falling on the steel deck. Afterwards, his Jones Act employer and the owner of the tugboat, Atlantic Sounding informed him that he would not receive maintenance and care. This was an obligation's of the owners under the Lewis federal precedent.

Townsend filed suit alleging maintenance, care and punitive damages for willfull and arbitrary failure to pay maintenance and care. An interlocutory appeal was filed which resulted in the court ruling in favor of punitive damages. This was appealed again and this time the Supreme Court firmly established that punitive damages were not only a general remedy in common law and maritime law, but that willful neglect and/or outrageous conduct was exactly the kind of behavior that punitive damages meant to deter.

The establishment of 45 Sec. (51-60) did not limit the remedies that could be sought. It merely outlined that negligence would be the measuring bar for liability. It in no way limits remedies or bars the common law rule of punitive damages or remedies in general

This new case on maintenance and cure law will help protect injured seaman and allow them to obtain medical treatment and compensation while they are injured. Now a Jones Act employer may think twice before wrongfully denying medical treatment and compensation to an injured seaman.