| U.S. Department of Labor - These are contact numbers for Dept of Labor Offices that maintain regional employment, unemployment, wage information. ALASKA - Juneau, AK - (907) 465-4518 ARIZONA - Phoenix, AZ - (602) 542-3871 ARKANSAS - Little Rock, AR - (501) 682-4500 CALIFORNIA - Sacramento, CA - (916) 262-2160 COLORADO - Denver, CO - (303) 318-8898 CONNECTICUT - Wethersfield, CT - (860) 263-6255 DELAWARE - Wilmington, DE - (302) 761-8052 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA - (202) 671-1633 GUAM - Tamuning, GU - (671) 475-7062 HAWAII - Honolulu, HI - (808) 586-8996 IDAHO - Boise, ID - (800) 772-2553 ILLINOIS - Chicago, IL - (312) 793-2316 INDIANA - Indianapolis, IN - (317) 232-7460 IOWA - Des Moines, IA - (515) 281-0255 KANSAS - Topeka, KS - (785) 296-5058 KENTUCKY - Frankfort, KY - (502) 564-7976 LOUISIANA - Baton Rouge, LA - (225) 342-3141 MAINE - Augusta, ME - (207) 287-2271 MARYLAND - Baltimore, MD - (410) 767-2250 MASSACHUSETTS - Boston, MA - (617) 626-6556 MICHIGAN - Detroit, MI - (313) 456-3090 MINNESOTA - St. Paul, MN - (651) 282-2714 MISSISSIPPI - Jackson, MS - (601) 321-6261 MISSOURI - Jefferson City, MO - (573) 751-3609 |
| U.S. Department of Labor - These are contact numbers for Dept of Labor Offices that maintain regional employment, unemployment, wage information. NEVADA - Carson City, NV - (775) 684-0387 NEW HAMPSHIRE - Concord, NH - (603) 228-4123 NEW JERSEY - Trenton, NJ 08625 - 609 292-0099 NEW MEXICO - Albuquerque, NM - (505) 222-4683 NEW YORK - Albany, NY - (518) 457-6369 NORTH CAROLINA - Raleigh, NC - (919) 733-2936 NORTH DAKOTA - Bismarck, ND - (701) 328-2868 OHIO - Columbus, OH - (614) 752-9494 OKLAHOMA - Oklahoma City, OK - (405) 557-7265 OREGON - Salem, OR - (503) 947-1212 PENNSYLVANIA - Harrisburg, PA - (717) 787-3266 PUERTO RICO Hato Rey, PR - (787) 754-5340 RHODE ISLAND - Cranston, RI - (401) 462-8767 SOUTH CAROLINA - Columbia, SC (803) 737-2660SOUTH DAKOTA - Aberdeen, SD - (605) 626-2314 TENNESSEE - Nashville, TN - (615) 741-2284 TEXAS - Austin, TX - UTAH - Salt Lake City, UT - (801) 526-9401 VERMONT - Montpelier, VT - (802) 828-4153 VIRGIN ISLANDS-Charlotte Aml, VI -340 776-3700 VIRGINIA - Richmond, VA - (804) 786-7496 WASHINGTON - Lacey, WA - (360) 438-4804 WEST VIRGINIA - Charleston, WV - (304) 558-2660 WISCONSIN - Madison, WI - (608) 267-2393 WYOMING - Casper, WY - (307) 473-3807 |
| Maritime Law - Negligence & Unseaworthiness |
| Maritime Jobs - Marine Jobs - Deckhands - Tankermen - Able Seaman - Maritime Jobs - Deck Engine - Employment in the Maritime Industry - Work on Ships - Yachts - Tugboats - Cruise Ships |
Maritime Law - Negligence and Unseaworthiness
Common Legal Theories for Maritime Workers
Negligence is one of the oldest legal concepts. And it isn't exclusively maritime in nature.
Long before fast ferries, builders in the ancient world had to answer for the integrity of
buildings they constructed. If they were not diligent in the sizing of beams and selection of
earthen materials and a home collapsed, they would have some explaining to do.
It should be pointed out that negligence is but one theory under which legal actions are
brought to protect the rights of maritime employees. (see Other Legal Theories - Product
Liability and Strict Liability ) Unseaworthiness is another legal theory. Unseaworthiness
is basically a warranty theory. The owner of a vessel owner is held to impliedly warrant that
the vessel is seaworthy. This means the vessel is reasonably fit for its intended use. If an
injured maritime employee brings a cause of action based on unseaworthiness, it means
that they claim that the vessel, or part of the vessel, was not fit for its intended purpose.
When the word unseaworthiness is used in lay terms, it tends to suggest a vessel that
undoubtedly appears unseaworthy… maybe something like the SS Minnow in Gilligan’s
Island. However, this is not a requirement. The vessel could appear in excellent condition
on a visible inspection, but still be unfit for duty because of something like a frayed or dried
out fire hose. If a tug is pulling in a barge and the cable snaps, it wouldn’t matter that the
tug is in immaculate condition, with no corrosion on the hull, and brand new engines. If that
cable was corroded and that was the cause of an injury or wrongful death, the injured
employee or the estate would bring a legal action based on the theory of unseaworthiness.
Common Legal Theories for Maritime Workers
Negligence is one of the oldest legal concepts. And it isn't exclusively maritime in nature.
Long before fast ferries, builders in the ancient world had to answer for the integrity of
buildings they constructed. If they were not diligent in the sizing of beams and selection of
earthen materials and a home collapsed, they would have some explaining to do.
It should be pointed out that negligence is but one theory under which legal actions are
brought to protect the rights of maritime employees. (see Other Legal Theories - Product
Liability and Strict Liability ) Unseaworthiness is another legal theory. Unseaworthiness
is basically a warranty theory. The owner of a vessel owner is held to impliedly warrant that
the vessel is seaworthy. This means the vessel is reasonably fit for its intended use. If an
injured maritime employee brings a cause of action based on unseaworthiness, it means
that they claim that the vessel, or part of the vessel, was not fit for its intended purpose.
When the word unseaworthiness is used in lay terms, it tends to suggest a vessel that
undoubtedly appears unseaworthy… maybe something like the SS Minnow in Gilligan’s
Island. However, this is not a requirement. The vessel could appear in excellent condition
on a visible inspection, but still be unfit for duty because of something like a frayed or dried
out fire hose. If a tug is pulling in a barge and the cable snaps, it wouldn’t matter that the
tug is in immaculate condition, with no corrosion on the hull, and brand new engines. If that
cable was corroded and that was the cause of an injury or wrongful death, the injured
employee or the estate would bring a legal action based on the theory of unseaworthiness.
Negligence generally the legal theory with maritime accidents. In 1934, the RMS Olympic,
sistership of the Titanic, ran over the Nantucket Lightship in 1934 in a tragic accident that
took the lives of seven of the lightship's crew in the foggy waters off New England
sistership of the Titanic, ran over the Nantucket Lightship in 1934 in a tragic accident that
took the lives of seven of the lightship's crew in the foggy waters off New England
In July 1956, the ocean liner Andrea Doria collided with the Stockholm in the same area.
Negligence was the theory used to analyze the actions of each ship's deck officers.
Negligence was the theory used to analyze the actions of each ship's deck officers.
When the containership Cosco Busan allided with the S.F. Bay Bridge, investigators
looked at whether operating the vessel in fog that day amounted to negligence. Ultimately,
the negligence rose to the level of criminal culpability, resulting in conviction of the pilot.
looked at whether operating the vessel in fog that day amounted to negligence. Ultimately,
the negligence rose to the level of criminal culpability, resulting in conviction of the pilot.
Copyright 2007 - Copyright Warning - Violators Will Be Prosecuted
Rights reserved - U.S. Copyright Law Carries Criminal & Civil Penalties for
Infringement - 17 U.S.C. § 506 and 18 U.S.C. § 2319
Rights reserved - U.S. Copyright Law Carries Criminal & Civil Penalties for
Infringement - 17 U.S.C. § 506 and 18 U.S.C. § 2319
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
There is a sad irony in this photograph of the White Star Line's RMS Olympic. Aside from the fact
she would alone survive her ill-fated sisters Britannic and Titanic, the ship in the foreground is the
Ambrose Lightship, similar to the Nantucket Lightship that the Olympic unintentionally rammed in
1934, killing four crew instantly and another three from their wounds after the tragic accident.
she would alone survive her ill-fated sisters Britannic and Titanic, the ship in the foreground is the
Ambrose Lightship, similar to the Nantucket Lightship that the Olympic unintentionally rammed in
1934, killing four crew instantly and another three from their wounds after the tragic accident.
The word “negligence” is frequently used as a legal term, where
attorneys will base their cause of action on a theory of
negligence. Other than in attorney summons’s and complaints,
the day-to-day usage of the word “negligence” essentially
means carelessness. For maritime employees, it generally
means that someone was careless, and as a result, someone
was injured, or worse, killed. If the victim is injured, we’re
looking at an injury action based on the legal theory of
negligence. If the victim is killed, it’s a wrongful death action.
What are the elements of negligence? Is it possible to do a step
by step analysis to determine if negligence occurred? Yes...
click more detail about the legal theory of negligence.
attorneys will base their cause of action on a theory of
negligence. Other than in attorney summons’s and complaints,
the day-to-day usage of the word “negligence” essentially
means carelessness. For maritime employees, it generally
means that someone was careless, and as a result, someone
was injured, or worse, killed. If the victim is injured, we’re
looking at an injury action based on the legal theory of
negligence. If the victim is killed, it’s a wrongful death action.
What are the elements of negligence? Is it possible to do a step
by step analysis to determine if negligence occurred? Yes...
click more detail about the legal theory of negligence.
It is interesting to analyze from a legal standpoint the negligence involved in the loss of
the RMS Titanic. Ice warnings were not heeded, binoculars were not provided to the
lookouts, lifeboat capacity was inadequate... but one must remember that the standards
of the day were different in 1912 than they are today.
the RMS Titanic. Ice warnings were not heeded, binoculars were not provided to the
lookouts, lifeboat capacity was inadequate... but one must remember that the standards
of the day were different in 1912 than they are today.
It is said that a 10 cent light bulb
might have averted the accidental
collision of the Andrea Doria and
Stockholm. On the dark bridge,
Andrea Doria’s officers were
uncertain of the distance to the
cargo ship because the radar
calibration scale was not lit. Other
proximate causes of the tragic
accident which resulted in injuries
and wrongful deaths included fog,
high speed of the liner, and action of
by the liner, which turned to port as
the Stockholm turned to starboard.
might have averted the accidental
collision of the Andrea Doria and
Stockholm. On the dark bridge,
Andrea Doria’s officers were
uncertain of the distance to the
cargo ship because the radar
calibration scale was not lit. Other
proximate causes of the tragic
accident which resulted in injuries
and wrongful deaths included fog,
high speed of the liner, and action of
by the liner, which turned to port as
the Stockholm turned to starboard.