When is a seaman, not a seaman?

This decision reiterates the definition of a seaman. The relevant criteria are useful to employers in assessing which employees are covered under the Jones Act, and its more favourable liability standard, or other federal laws, such as the LHWCA. 

 

Santee v Oceaneering International Inc was recently heard in the Fifth Circuit and is an important decision flowing from the earlier Sanchez decision on whether or not a worker onboard a drillship is considered a Jones Act seaman. The Marine Merchant Act 1920, known as the Jones Act, provides a statutory right for a Jones Act seaman to sue their employer for negligence and pursue damages under General Maritime Law.  The Jones Act provides a right to a jury trial. This is often preferred by a plaintiff as it increases the possibility of a ruling in their favour and higher awards for damages.

The Santee case.

From 2016, Shanon Roy Santee worked as a ROV Remote Operated Vehicles (ROV) technician onboard the M/V DEEPWATER CONQUEROR. This drillship was owned by Transocean and chartered to Chevron. In turn, Chevron had a contract with Oceaneering, Santee’s employer, for ROV services.

In January 2021, Mr. Santee alleged that he suffered neck and shoulder injuries whilst conducting routine maintenance on an ROV in service of the Chevron contract. It was alleged that the injury was suffered following replacement of a thirty-pound cursor pin on the launch and recovery system, a device which retrieves the ROV from the water. Mr. Santee underwent surgical fusion to address his neck pain.

Mr. Santee filed suit in Texas state court.

Mr. Santee’s cause of action

Claiming under a combination of the Jones Act, General Maritime Law, and Savings to Suitors Clause¹ he pursued his claims under the tort of negligence, alleging unseaworthiness of the vessel. The defendants’ response was to move the case to Federal Court under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA)². This led to Mr. Santee attempting to remand the case back to state court, citing he was a “seaman” under the Jones Act on the grounds that he was in the service of the vessel as a crewmember for a significant duration of time. But the Court ruled that Mr. Santee had fraudulently   identified his status under the Jones Act. It decided that he was not a seaman at the time of his injury. In addition, it also decided that the DEEPWATER CONQUEROR was attached to the seabed on the Outer Continental Shelf, so that the OCSLA legislation was applicable.

How “seaman status” is determined

The criteria for assessing “Seaman” status was set out in the US Supreme Court case of Chandris v Latsis [1995]. This test comprises of two fundamental elements:

1. they contributed to the function of the vessel or to the accomplishment of its mission; and
2. they had a connection to a vessel in navigation (or to an identifiable group of such vessels) that was substantial in terms of both its duration and its nature.

In the Sanchez case, point 2 is assessed by reference to three factors:

1. Does the worker owe his allegiance to the vessel, rather than simply to a shoreside employer?
2. Is the work sea-based or involve seagoing activity?
   3.  Is the worker’s assignment to a vessel (a) limited to performance of a discrete task after which the worker’s connection to the vessel ends, or (b) include sailing with the vessel from port to port or location to location?

Mr. Santee’s Jones Act claims fail.

On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit (district court) decided that Mr. Santee only met two of the aforementioned factors, falling short as his allegiance was to his land-based employer, Oceaneering, who did not own, or operate, the DEEPWATER CONQUEROR. As Mr. Santee failed to meet the criteria to be deemed a Jones Act seaman, his claim was therefore covered by the Longshore Harbor Worker’s Compensation Act (LHWCA).

Mr. Santee lost the decision.

The Fifth Circuit Court’s decision to agree with the defendants’ motions on negligence was important because it meant that Mr. Santee’s claim was not to be assessed using the more favourable liability standard afforded to Jones Act seafarers. Instead, the LHWCA has remedy provisions which gives the employer immunity from claims of negligence   subject to certain exceptions which did not apply in this instance.

The shipowner is not liable.

Transocean, who owned the vessel, successfully dismissed themselves under the LHWCA, in which the vessel owner owes three Scindia Duties (turnover, active control, and intervention  ) to maritime workers aboard their vessels). It was decided that as Mr. Santee had the final authority for any repairs to the ROV, via his employment with Oceaneering, Transocean were absolved of any Scindia Duties as they had no knowledge of the ROV’s condition, and any concerns arising prior to the work being undertaken were considered open and obvious to him.

Why the Santee case is relevant.

This decision will be useful to our Members as it reiterates the definition of a seaman and the relevant criteria are useful to employers in assessing which employees are covered under the Jones Act or other federal laws, such as the LHWCA.

Source: https://www.steamshipmutual.com/when-seaman-not-seaman