Maritime Issues

Rights of Female Maritime Workers

April 5, 2012 | Kraft Davies Olsson PLLC

Seafaring work has long been thought of as a male profession. To a certain extent, that is still true. Although women are increasingly finding their way into maritime work, they still make up less than two percent of all seafaring professionals.

However, just because women are in the minority doesn’t mean they don’t have rights. Like men, female mariners have a right to fair wages, a safe working environment that minimizes the risk of maritime accidents and to equal protection under the law. In addition, women mariners are entitled to certain protections if they become pregnant.

Below is an overview of some important rights of which every female mariner should be aware.

Fire on Tug in Lake Ontario Injures Crewmembers

March 28, 2012 | Kraft Davies Olsson PLLC

On March 27, 2012 at around 2:00 a.m. a U.S Flagged tug Patrice McAllister caught fire with six people aboard in Canadian waters of Lake Ontario. U.S. Coast Guard and Canadian Coast Guard rescue crews responded to the vessel located seven miles south of Prince Edward Point, Ontario. One injured crewmember was medically evacuated by Canadian helicopter crew and taken to a hospital in Belleville, Ontario, and was later transferred to Sunnybrook Hospital in Toronto. The other five crewmembers were taken aboard a Canadian Coast Guard vessel and taken to Kingston, Ontario. Their current conditions are unknown. Yesterday, a commercial salvage vessel towed the Patrice McAllister to a freight dock in Clayton, New York where it will be inspected by the U.S. Coast Guard.

Crewmembers injured aboard the Patrice McAllister may have claims against the vessel owner under the Jones Act and/or the doctrine of seaworthiness. For more information and a free, no obligation consultation regarding claims under the Jones Act or the doctrine of unseaworthiness please call our office at 866-377-0191.

For more about this story see http://www.d9.uscgnews.com/go/doc/443/1350723/.

Sunken dry dock and capsized tug at Vigor Marine Shipyard on March 18, 2012

March 20, 2012 | Kraft Davies Olsson PLLC

On Sunday, March 18, 2012 a 200-foot section of dry dock containing the 140-foot tug Invader sunk causing the tug to capsize at the Vigor Marine Shipyard in Everett, Washington. The dry dock began sinking on Saturday evening and stopped at approximately 12 p.m., Sunday, after making contact with the sea floor. Both the dry dock and the Invader are partially submerged, with the Invader capsized, listing 90 degrees on its starboard side. The cause of the sinking has not been determined.

Due to the presence of fuel on the tug, the Coast Guard and Washington Dept. of Ecology are treating the sinking as a potential environmental hazard. The owner of the Invader has confirmed that an estimated 50,000-60,000 gallons of diesel is contained in the vessel’s fuel tanks. Crews sealed the tanks over the weekend to prevent a release of the oil into the water and workers have surrounded the area with three rows of oil spill containment boom in case of a leak or spill.

Salvage crews are on scene, and have set the dock level so that it rests on the bottom at its mooring, and have stabilized the tug. Salvage experts are currently developing a plan to right the tug.

Washington Court of Appeals Rejects American Seafoods’ Appeal

March 15, 2011 | Kraft Davies Olsson PLLC

In Mai v. American Seafoods Company, 2011 Wash. App. LEXIS 615 (2011), our law firm represented a fish processing employee who injured her knee when she was struck by a 40 pound box of frozen fish product during an offload in Dutch Harbor. When our client’s doctor determined that she needed a total knee replacement, American Seafoods refused to pay for the medical treatment or pay maintenance to Mai unless she submitted to a company medical examination in Seattle. When Mai refused to submit to the examination, American Seafoods terminated her maintenance and cure and filed a declaratory judgment action against Mai in federal court in Seattle.

The Washington Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s finding that American Seafoods’ refusal to pay maintenance and cure was “willful, persistent, and unreasonable.” The court stated: “The trial court could reasonably conclude from the evidence that the true reason for this challenge was a desire to develop expert testimony for anticipated litigation, rather than any serious question about Mai’s knee for a [total knee replacement].”

Soundly rejecting American Seafoods’ claim that it could deny maintenance and cure if Mai refused to submit to a medical examination by company doctors, the court stated: “We hold that . . . ASC could not condition Mai’s receipt of maintenance and cure upon her attendance at an IME.” It also stated: “[R]eported maritime law decisions provide little support for ASC’s claim that the scope of that investigation goes so far as to allow a shipowner to avoid maintenance and cure liability under the facts of this case.”