U.S. Code » Title 46 » Subtitle Subtitle III— Maritime Liability › Chapter CHAPTER 301— GENERAL LIABILITY PROVISIONS

46 U.S.C. § 30104

Personal injury to or death of seamen

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 46 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)In General.—A seaman injured in the course of employment or, if the seaman dies from the injury, the personal representative of the seaman may elect to bring a civil action at law, with the right of trial by jury, against the employer. Laws of the United States regulating recovery for personal injury to, or death of, a railway employee apply to an action under this section.(b)Limitation on Recovery by Aquaculture Workers.—(1)In general.—For purposes of subsection (a), the term “seaman” does not include an individual who—(A) is an aquaculture worker if State workers’ compensation is available to such individual; and(B) was, at the time of injury, engaged in aquaculture in a place where such individual had lawful access.(2)Aquaculture worker defined.—In this subsection, the term “aquaculture worker” means an individual who—(A) is employed by a commercial enterprise that is involved in the controlled cultivation and harvest of aquatic plants and animals, including—(i) the cleaning, processing, or canning of fish and fish products;(ii) the cultivation and harvesting of shellfish; and(iii) the controlled growing and harvesting of other aquatic species;(B) does not hold a license issued under section 7101(c); and(C) is not required to hold a merchant mariner credential under part F of subtitle II.(Pub. L. 109–304, § 6(c), Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1510; Pub. L. 110–181, div. C, title XXXV, § 3521(a), Jan. 28, 2008, 122 Stat. 596; Pub. L. 117–263, div. K, title CXV, § 11520(a), Dec. 23, 2022, 136 Stat. 4142.)

Historical and Revision Notes

Revised

Section

Source (U.S. Code)

Source (Statutes at Large)

30104(a)

46 App.:688(a) (1st sentence).

Mar. 4, 1915, ch. 153, § 20(a), 38 Stat. 1185; June 5, 1920, ch. 250, § 33, 41 Stat. 1007; Pub. L. 97–389, title V, § 503(a)(1), Dec. 29, 1982, 96 Stat. 1955.

30104(b)

46 App.:688(a) (last sentence).

In subsection (a), the words “A seaman injured in the course of employment or, if the seaman dies from the injury, the personal representative of the seaman” are substituted for “Any seaman who shall suffer personal injury in the course of his employment” and “in case of the death of any seaman as a result of any such personal injury the personal representative” to eliminate unnecessary words. The words “bring a civil action” are substituted for “maintain an action” for consistency with rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (28 App. U.S.C.). The words “for damages” are omitted as unnecessary. The words “against the employer” are added for clarity. The words “Laws of the United States regulating recovery for personal injury to, or death of, a railway employee” are substituted for “all statutes of the United States modifying or extending the common-law right or remedy in cases of personal injury to railway employees” and “all statutes of the United States conferring or regulating the right of action for death in the case of railway employees” to eliminate unnecessary words.

In subsection (b), the words “An action under this section shall be brought” are substituted for “Jurisdiction in such actions shall be under” because 46 App. U.S.C. 688(a) (last sentence) provides for venue, not jurisdiction. Panama R.R. Co. v. Johnson, 264 U.S. 375 (1924). As to the relationship between 46 App. U.S.C. 688(a) (last sentence) and 28 U.S.C. 1391(c), see Pure Oil Co. v. Suarez, 384 U.S. 202 (1966).

Editorial NotesAmendments

2022—Pub. L. 117–263 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a), inserted heading, and added subsec. (b).

2008—Pub. L. 110–181 struck out subsec. (a) designation and heading before “A seaman injured” and struck out heading and text of subsec. (b). Text read as follows: “An action under this section shall be brought in the judicial district in which the employer resides or the employer’s principal office is located.”

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2022 Amendment

Pub. L. 117–263, div. K, title CXV, § 11520(b), Dec. 23, 2022, 136 Stat. 4143, provided that: “The amendments made by this section [amending this section] shall apply to an injury incurred on or after the date of enactment of this Act [Dec. 23, 2022].”

Effective Date of 2008 Amendment

Pub. L. 110–181, div. C, title XXXV, § 3521(b), Jan. 28, 2008, 122 Stat. 596, provided that: “The amendment made by subsection (a) [amending this section] shall be effective as if included in the enactment of Public Law 109–304.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 602 cases (174 in the last 5 years), 2007–2026 · leading case: Lindo v. NCL (Bahamas), Ltd., 652 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lindo v. NCL (Bahamas), Ltd., 652 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2011). · cites it 14× “Lindo sues NCL on a single count of Jones Act negligence, pursuant to 46 U.S.C. § 30104 . He claims that NCL breached its duty to supply him with a safe place to work.”
Atl. Sounding Co. v. Townsend, 557 U.S. 404 (2009). · cites it 6× “19 (1990), seamen may recover only those dam ages available under the Jones Act, 46 U. S. C. §30104 . We disagree. Historically, punitive damages have been available and awarded in general maritime actions, including some in maintenance and cure.”
Dutra Grp. v. Batterton, 139 S. Ct. 2275 (2019). · cites it 5× “46 U.S.C. § 30104 . Rather than create a new structure of substantive rights, the Jones Act incorporated the rights provided to railway workers under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), 45 U.”
Wilfred Jones v. United States, 936 F.3d 318 (5th Cir. 2019). · cites it 2× “He asserted a negligence claim under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30104 , via the Suits in Admiralty Act, 46 U.”
McBride Ex Rel. I.M.S. v. Estis Well Serv., L.L.C., 768 F.3d 382 (5th Cir. 2014). · cites it 4× “” 8 In 1886, the Court, in The Harrisburg, 9 held that no action for wrongful death “will lie in the courts of the United States under the general maritime law.” That remained the law of the land until the Supreme Court overruled The Harrisburg in Moragne v.”
William C. Skye v. Maersk Line, 751 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2014). · cites it 10× “PRYOR, Circuit Judge: This appeal requires us to decide whether a seaman can recover money damages under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30104 , for an injury stemming from Case: 12-16433 Date Filed: 05/15/2014 Page: 2 of 15 excessive work hours and an erratic sleep schedule.”
Holloway v. Pagan River Dockside Seafood, Inc., 669 F.3d 448 (4th Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “OPINION NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge: Timothy Holloway commenced this action under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30104 (formerly codified at 46 U.”
Coronel v. AK Victory, 1 F. Supp. 3d 1175 (W.D. Wash. 2014). · cites it 4× “) Plaintiff originally filed this suit in the King County Superior Court in the State of Washington, alleging claims for maintenance, cure, and lost wages under general maritime law and for damages under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30104 . (See Compl. (Dkt. # 1-2).”
Doe v. Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd., 657 F.3d 1204 (11th Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “The first five of those claims fall under either the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30104 , or the general maritime law applicable to seamen, or the Seaman's Wage Act, 46 U.”
Dumitru v. Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd., 732 F. Supp. 2d 328 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). · cites it 5× “Dumitru has filed two related cases 1 which, combined, assert four causes of action: (1) Negligence under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30104 ; (2) Unseaworthiness under General Maritime Law (“GML”); (3) Maintenance and cure under GML; and (4) Unpaid and penalty wages under the…”
Johnson v. Cenac Towing, Inc., 544 F.3d 296 (5th Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “Johnson filed suit against Cenac for negligence under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30104 , unseaworthiness under general maritime law, and maintenance and cure.”
Weeks Marine, Inc. v. Garza, 371 S.W.3d 157 (Tex. 2012). · cites it 2× “Conclusion Because no evidence supports Garza’s unreasonable-failure-to-pay award, we reverse that part of the court of appeals’ judgment and render judgment that Garza take nothing on that claim. We affirm the remainder of the judgment.”
Show all 602 citing cases →
— 46 U.S.C. § 30104(a) — 1 case
Zatuchni v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 516 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.