Longview TX Maritime Accident Lawyer

Who Qualifies as a Jones Act Seaman?

The Jones Act is a federal statute. It applies to seamen, not to all maritime workers. Qualifying as a seaman requires satisfying the two-part test from Chandris v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 347 (1995). First, you must contribute to the function of a vessel or the accomplishment of its mission. Second, you must have a substantial connection to a vessel in navigation as a matter of duration and nature.

Courts have interpreted "substantial connection" to mean spending roughly 30% or more of your work time aboard a vessel. The vessel itself must be in navigation on navigable waters. In East Texas, that includes vessels operating on the Sabine River, which runs along the Texas-Louisiana border and is subject to federal admiralty jurisdiction. Longview-area workers who travel to Gulf Coast offshore platforms or work on inland waterway supply boats can also qualify.

The status test is fact-specific. Courts look at your actual job duties, how your employer assigned you across different vessels or locations, whether you were part of a vessel fleet, and the regularity of your offshore time. A general contractor employee who spends 40% of the year aboard a supply vessel on the Sabine River corridor is likely a Jones Act seaman. The same worker who spends 90% of the time at a land-based facility probably is not. Ask any attorney you are considering whether they can walk through the Chandris two-part test applied to your specific assignment history. It is a basic diagnostic that separates maritime attorneys from general personal injury attorneys.

See also our offshore accidents page for workers with claims arising from Gulf Coast platforms.

Maintenance and Cure: Your Employer's Unconditional Obligation

Maintenance and Cure is not a damages claim. It is a no-fault obligation that exists the moment a seaman is injured in the service of a vessel, regardless of how the injury happened or who was responsible.

Maintenance covers daily living expenses, including room and board, while you are injured and unable to work. Cure covers all reasonable and necessary medical treatment until you reach MMI. Your employer cannot require you to prove negligence to receive maintenance and cure. They cannot condition it on a release of your other claims.

Maintenance rates present a recurring problem. Employment contracts often set maintenance at $35-50 per day, which reflects rates from decades ago. Courts have consistently found that maintenance must reflect actual daily living costs. When an employer pays a contractually specified rate that falls below reasonable living costs, an attorney can litigate the maintenance rate as a separate issue from the underlying injury claim.

Willful and unreasonable refusal to pay maintenance and cure exposes the employer to punitive damages and attorneys fees. This is one of the few areas in maritime law where punitive damages are available without proving egregious wrongdoing. Ask any attorney you are considering: have they litigated maintenance rate disputes separately from the primary negligence claim? The strategy for those two fights is different, and handling them together poorly can harm both.

Jones Act Negligence: Proving Your Employer's Fault

Jones Act negligence operates under a different standard than Texas personal injury law. Under the Jones Act, your employer is liable if their negligence played "any part," however small, in causing your injury. This is called the "featherweight causation" standard. You do not need to show the negligence was the primary or substantial cause. Any contribution is enough.

Common employer failures that satisfy this standard include assigning insufficient crew, providing defective equipment, and failing to follow safety protocols. Requiring work in hazardous conditions without adequate protection also qualifies. So does failing to maintain a seaworthy vessel. The vessel does not need to be the scene of the accident. If your employer's onshore decisions created the hazard you encountered on the water, the Jones Act still applies.

The Jones Act gives you the right to a jury trial, which is unusual for maritime claims. The statute of limitations is 3 years from the date of injury under 46 U.S.C. Section 30106. This is a critical difference from Texas general personal injury law, which imposes a 2-year statute of limitations under CPRC Section 16.003. If you miss the Texas deadline while waiting for the Jones Act deadline, you could lose state-based claims without realizing it.

Maritime comparative fault also differs from Texas law. Under maritime law, pure comparative fault applies. Your recovery is reduced by your percentage of fault, but there is no cutoff. Even if you are 80% at fault, you recover 20% of your damages. Texas proportionate responsibility under CPRC Chapter 33 does not apply to Jones Act claims. Federal maritime law preempts state fault rules. This distinction can make a material difference in case value. For wrongful death claims, see our wrongful death page.

Key evidence in Jones Act cases includes crew duty logs, vessel maintenance records, safety inspection reports, Coast Guard incident reports, and OSHA records. The U.S. Coast Guard Sector Houston-Galveston maintains records of marine casualties on Texas navigable waters. Ask any attorney you are considering how quickly they send preservation demands for vessel logs and maintenance records. In most maritime cases, that evidence disappears unless a preservation letter goes out within days.

Unseaworthiness: A Separate Federal Claim

Unseaworthiness is a strict liability claim. It does not require proof of negligence. It requires proof that the vessel, its equipment, or its crew was not reasonably fit for the intended purpose at the time of the injury.

Vessel owners owe an absolute duty of seaworthiness to seamen. This duty is independent of the Jones Act and can be pled alongside it. Common unseaworthiness conditions include defective rigging, frayed cables, slippery deck surfaces without adequate non-slip treatment, inadequate life-saving equipment, machinery that was improperly maintained, dangerous cargo that was improperly secured, and crew members who lacked the training or competence for their assigned duties. An incompetent crew member who injures another seaman renders the vessel unseaworthy.

Because unseaworthiness is strict liability, it reaches injuries that Jones Act negligence might not. If the equipment was defective but your employer had no reason to know about the defect, you cannot prove they were negligent. But if the equipment was not reasonably fit for its purpose, unseaworthiness applies regardless of whether the employer knew. For this reason, well-handled maritime cases plead both theories together. Ask any attorney you are considering whether they identify and plead unseaworthiness alongside Jones Act as a matter of course. Attorneys who practice primarily in Texas general personal injury may not think to do this.

The statute of limitations for unseaworthiness claims is governed by the doctrine of laches, not a fixed statutory period. Courts consider whether you delayed filing and whether the delay prejudiced the defendant. In practice, courts applying laches to maritime claims frequently use the 3-year Jones Act period as a guide, but this is not absolute. Filing within 3 years is the safe standard. Claims delayed beyond 3 years face significant risk of dismissal.

What Does the LHWCA Cover for Non-Seamen Maritime Workers?

Workers who spend time in maritime environments but do not qualify as seamen may be covered by the LHWCA. This covers dock workers, longshore workers, ship repairers, harbor construction workers, and others who work on or adjacent to navigable waters but do not have the vessel connection required for Jones Act status.

LHWCA provides no-fault benefits: payment for all reasonable medical treatment, lost wage replacement at two-thirds of your average weekly wage up to a maximum, and permanent disability compensation. You do not need to prove your employer was negligent. The trade-off is that you cannot sue your employer for pain and suffering under the LHWCA workers comp track.

Texas state workers compensation does not govern these claims. Texas workers comp is optional for most employers under Texas Labor Code Section 406.002, but that opt-out structure is irrelevant to LHWCA-covered injuries. Federal law applies exclusively, administered by the U.S. Department of Labor Office of Workers Compensation Programs.

Gregg County workers employed at East Texas pipeline terminals, river terminals on the Sabine River corridor, or vessel staging facilities may qualify for LHWCA coverage. If your injury occurred while performing work on a dock, a pier, or a marine terminal, the analysis starts with LHWCA.

The LHWCA does not prevent all lawsuits. If a vessel owner, a third-party contractor, or another non-employer party caused your injury, you can file a negligence lawsuit against that party alongside your LHWCA benefits claim. This is called a Section 905(b) third-party action. Two significant LHWCA extensions apply to East Texas workers. The Defense Base Act covers overseas defense contract workers. The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) extends LHWCA coverage to workers on offshore platforms over the Outer Continental Shelf.

General Maritime Law Negligence: Claims Beyond the Jones Act

Not every maritime injury claim involves an employee. Passengers, recreational boaters, marina customers, and bystanders injured on navigable waters can bring claims under general maritime law negligence without needing Jones Act status or LHWCA coverage.

The standard is reasonable care. Vessel operators owe a duty of reasonable care under the circumstances to all persons aboard. This includes passengers on charter boats, guests on private vessels, and workers boarding vessels who are not crew. When a vessel operator or owner breaches that duty through negligent operation, unsafe vessel conditions, or failure to warn of known hazards, injured parties can recover damages.

In East Texas, the Sabine River and its connected waterways fall under federal admiralty jurisdiction. Lake Cherokee in Rusk County involves navigable water issues that may bring federal maritime law into play depending on the circumstances of the accident. Inland marina accidents, boat rental incidents, and watercraft collisions on East Texas lakes can all be maritime law cases. For comparison to motor vehicle accidents in other contexts, see our car accidents page.

The statute of limitations for general maritime law negligence is 3 years. Maritime law's pure comparative fault applies here as well. Texas proportionate responsibility law does not govern general maritime law claims on navigable waters. If a recreational boater on the Sabine River injures you and you were 60% at fault, you still recover 40% of your damages. Under Texas proportionate responsibility, that same fact pattern would result in zero recovery.

The Borrowed Servant Doctrine in Maritime Cases

Many Longview-area workers who perform work on or near navigable waters are employed by staffing companies or subcontractors, not by the vessel owner directly. The borrowed servant doctrine addresses who bears Jones Act liability in these situations.

Under the borrowed servant doctrine, a seaman may be considered the "borrowed servant" of a vessel operator even if their paycheck comes from a different company. The test, derived from Borrowed Servant Doctrine, focuses on control: who has the right to direct the details of the worker's activities at the time of the injury? If a vessel operator instructs the worker day-to-day, supervises their tasks, and directs their movements aboard the vessel, that operator may be the borrowed employer for Jones Act purposes.

This scenario arises frequently in East Texas oil field service work. A worker may be employed by a contractor that provides labor to multiple vessel operators along the Sabine River corridor or to offshore platforms in the Gulf. When that worker is injured while under the day-to-day direction of one particular vessel operator, the borrowed servant analysis determines who is liable.

Misclassification as an independent contractor does not eliminate maritime rights. Courts look at the actual working relationship, not the label on the contract. If the vessel operator controlled the manner and method of the work, an independent contractor label does not prevent a Jones Act claim. Ask any attorney you are considering whether they have litigated borrowed servant cases where the responsible employer was not the entity named on the paycheck.

What Injured Maritime Workers Recover

The damages available in maritime cases depend on which law applies and which claims are filed.

Under the Jones Act and general maritime law, recoverable damages include medical expenses already incurred and future medical costs. Lost wages, loss of earning capacity, and pain and suffering are also available. Pain and suffering includes both physical pain and emotional distress. Pain and suffering damages are not available on the LHWCA workers comp track.

Seamen who qualify for maintenance and cure receive their daily maintenance stipend and all cure costs as a separate obligation, even while their Jones Act negligence claim is pending. Maintenance and cure runs until MMI regardless of the outcome of the negligence case.

Punitive damages are available in limited maritime circumstances. Willful and unreasonable failure to pay maintenance and cure is the most common basis. Courts have also awarded punitive damages in unseaworthiness cases involving particularly egregious conduct, though this remains unsettled in some circuits.

For fatalities occurring beyond 3 nautical miles from shore, the Death on the High Seas Act governs the wrongful death claim. For deaths on inland navigable waters like the Sabine River, general maritime law wrongful death applies. Both provide recovery for the family's pecuniary losses. For the full wrongful death analysis, see our wrongful death page.

View our case results to see how we have handled significant recoveries in maritime and offshore injury cases.

Frequently Asked Questions

I work on the Sabine River doing pipeline support work. Does maritime law cover me?

It depends on whether your work qualifies you as a seaman or an LHWCA-covered worker. If you spend at least 30% of your work time aboard a vessel operating on the Sabine River, and you contribute to that vessel's function or mission, you likely qualify as a Jones Act seaman. The Sabine River is a navigable waterway subject to federal admiralty jurisdiction, so federal maritime law applies to injuries occurring there. If you work on the dock or terminal side more than the vessel side, the LHWCA may apply instead.

What is the difference between the Jones Act and the LHWCA, and which applies to me?

The Jones Act applies to seamen: workers who spend substantial time aboard a vessel in navigation and contribute to its function. It allows you to sue your employer for negligence and seek pain and suffering damages. The LHWCA applies to maritime workers who are not seamen, including dock workers, ship repairers, and harbor construction workers. The LHWCA provides no-fault benefits similar to workers compensation but does not allow a negligence lawsuit against your employer for pain and suffering. The classification determines your remedy, and the wrong classification can cost you significant money.

My employer is disputing that I am a seaman. What does that mean for my case?

Seaman status disputes are common and consequential. If your employer successfully argues you are not a seaman, your Jones Act claim fails and you may be left with only LHWCA benefits or a state workers comp claim, neither of which allows pain and suffering recovery. Courts resolve seaman status disputes using the Chandris v. Latsis two-part test. The fight over status often requires testimony from supervisors, review of employment records, and analysis of vessel assignment logs. This is a threshold litigation issue that must be addressed before the merits of the negligence claim.

How long do I have to file a Jones Act claim in Texas?

The Jones Act statute of limitations is 3 years from the date of injury under 46 U.S.C. Section 30106. This is longer than Texas's general 2-year statute of limitations for personal injury under CPRC Section 16.003. However, if your case involves both maritime and state law claims, you should not rely on the longer Jones Act period to protect state-based claims. An attorney should evaluate all applicable deadlines at the outset of the case.

My employer offered me maintenance and cure. Is that all I can recover?

No. Maintenance and cure is a separate no-fault obligation. Accepting it does not release your Jones Act negligence claim, your unseaworthiness claim, or your claim for pain and suffering damages. Employers sometimes present maintenance and cure payments in a way that suggests accepting them closes the case. They do not. If you are being pressured to sign anything in exchange for maintenance and cure payments, consult an attorney before signing.

Does Texas proportionate responsibility law apply to my maritime injury case?

No. Maritime law is federal and preempts Texas state fault rules for claims arising on navigable waters. Texas proportionate responsibility under CPRC Chapter 33 imposes a 51% bar: if you are more than 50% at fault, you recover nothing. Maritime law uses pure comparative fault with no cutoff. Even if you are found 70% at fault in a maritime case, you still recover 30% of your damages. This distinction is significant in cases where the employer argues the injured worker contributed to the accident.

What is an unseaworthiness claim and do I need to prove my employer was negligent?

An unseaworthiness claim is a strict liability claim against the vessel owner. You do not need to prove negligence. You prove that the vessel, its equipment, or its crew was not reasonably fit for the intended purpose at the time of your injury. Common examples include defective machinery, slippery decks without adequate traction, inadequate safety equipment, and incompetent crew members. Unseaworthiness is typically pled alongside a Jones Act negligence claim to capture injuries that might not satisfy the negligence standard but that clearly resulted from a vessel not fit for its purpose.

These answers reflect Louisiana law as of January 2026. For case specific advice, consult with a Louisiana personal injury attorney who can evaluate your particular circumstances.