• home
• the firm
• our people
  • attorneys
  • staff
• experience
  • practice areas
  • cases
  • articles
  • tesitmonials
• contact us

Contact Us

(206) 726-6600

Maritime Law Summary

A. Seamen Are Wards of the Admiralty.

Seamen are wards of the admiralty to be given special consideration by the federal courts with rules crafted specifically for their protection.

We must apply the law of today as we understand it. If it leaves the merchant mariner as the most favored and highly protected of individuals in civilized society, then, so be it. It is likely that the solicitude for the sailor shown by the modern rules arises as much from an understanding of the mariner's life as a precarious one as it is due to any mistake made by the courts in the genesis of these rules.

Sullivan v. Lyon S.S., Ltd. , 63 Wn.2d 316, 321, 387 P.2d 76 (1963), cert. denied , 377 U.S. 932 (1964).

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has emphasized these policy considerations:

The physical conditions under which the seaman labors are extremely hazardous. He works on an unstable and often slippery surface, subject to extreme sea and weather conditions. His duties may require his attention at all hours of the day and night. “He is often under the necessity of making quick decisions with little opportunity or capacity to appraise the relative safety or alternative choices of action.” Socony-Vacuum Co. v. Smith , 305 U.S. 424, 431 . . . (1939). Under such extreme circumstances, even an ordinarily careful worker may have momentary lapses of due care. . . .

The maritime law recognizes the unique conditions of the seaman's employment. The Supreme Court has written: “the seaman, while on his vessel, is subject to the rigorous discipline of the sea and has little opportunity to appeal to the protection from abuse of power which the law makes readily available to the landsman. . . . He cannot leave the vessel while at sea” to avoid dangerous conditions on board. Id . at 430. . . . For these reasons, “seamen are the wards of the admiralty, whose traditional policy it has been to avoid, within reasonable limits, the application of rules of common law which would affect them harshly because of the special circumstances attending their calling.” Id . at 431, 59 S. Ct. at 266. See also Mahnich v. Southern S.S. Co. , 321 U.S. 96 . . . (1944).

California Home Brands, Inc. v. Ferreira , 871 F.2d 830, 837-8 (9th Cir. 1989).

B. Legal Bases of Liability.

A seaman's employer and vessel owner owe her the duty to provide a seaworthy vessel, i.e., a vessel where all of its spaces and equipment are reasonably fit for their intended use. The employer also owes a duty of reasonable care to provide a safe place to work.