The United States of America and the Jones Act
The United States of America created and passed the Jones Act in response to the requirement that American seafarers be safeguarded in the event of injuries sustained while performing official duties. The Merchant Marine Act of 1920 provides official approval for the legislation. The statute is among the most important pieces of federal legislation the US has ever passed. Since the Act was passed in 1920, its application was out of date. Since then, certain rulings made in relevant lawsuits have followed the act's provisions. Together with the vessel owner, the Act also provides protection for the cargo and the seamen. The research paper particularly focuses on the reasons for the establishment of the Act, the benefits accruing to the parties subject to its effect and its application in practical scenarios experienced in the recent past. The act stipulates all these aspects in abundance and clearly defines the rights of the parties. The facts and findings, therefore base on the Merchant Maritime Act of 1920. The enactment is beneficial in various ways for the seamen of the United States of America. These benefits accrue to the seamen only when proven to be seamen as per the stipulations by the Act.
Discussion
The Jones Act covers some aspects ranging from the origin of the Act, the criteria for acknowledging the viability of a person to be a "seaman," the procedure for claim compensation by a seaman afflicted with injuries while on duty and the reasons for the establishment of the Act. The following texts cover these aspects in broad terms and the relation of the Act with a practical scenario. For the sake of this particular research paper, the practical application attached relates to the recent accident between an American warship and a merchant cruise ship in the Japan coast.
Qualifications that Need to be met for one to be considered a Seaman
The merchant Maritime Act of 1920 does not give a proper definition of who a seaman is, nor does it stipulate the specific criteria for a person to qualify as a seaman. Magistrates and attorneys of the court observe previous judgments to come up with conclusions as to whether a person qualifies as a seaman. The previous verdicts play an important role in creating room for developing viable decisions. However, the act gives some reasoning that may lead to qualifying a person to be a seaman. The consensus reached outlines that a person qualifies to be a seaman when the person receives the responsibility of a vessel or a fleet of ships that carry out operations in navigable waterways. Navigable waters in this context refer to interstate waters where commerce readily takes place. The criteria further specify that the responsibility given to the seaman should relate to the vessel or the fleet of vessels.
Another factor considered before an individual receives the benefit and title of being a seaman is that the person in question must spend a substantial amount of time in the vessel. The significance and significant impact of the time expended in the vessel should not be less than thirty percent of the individual's aggregate time (United States, 1988).
Once the attainment of both these stipulated criteria occurs to the maximum, then with no fear of contradictions, the person receives the benefits, title, and honor of being a seaman. Such a person rightly deserves all the rights and freedom granted by law to seamen. As such, any violations directed towards such an individual's are actionable in court.
Claims for Compensation
Under circumstances where the employer of the seamen takes steps that put the sailors at risk, and the consequences of the actions bear injuries on the part of the employees, a court lawsuit is actionable against the employer. The organization is answerable to the court of law for a trial whose basis is negligence. If the employee is negligent and consequently the seamen succumb to injuries while on official duty, the employer compensates the employee for either all the part of the damage caused.
Compensation offered by an employer to the victim of injury comes in two forms. These types include the financial contribution and the non-economic compensation. The economic manner of payment relates to the settlement of the past and future medical expenses of the injury victim by the employer. The financial compensation may also include payment of salaries lost and the impairment of earnings caused by the stoppage of work. The non-economic benefits include payments to ease pain and suffering by the victim of injury and the regaining of lost aspects of the personality of the victim. Due to these reasons the sailors feel they get protection both in person and when sailing with their personal items.
The Reasons behind the Enactment of the Merchant Maritime Act of 1920
The Jones Act's enactment depended on some objectives gathered from the stakeholders who gave different opinions on what was supposed to be given priority. The goals considerably lean in favor of the seamen who succumb to injuries while at official duty. The reasons behind the formulation of the Act vary in magnitude and nature. Despite the variance, the bill aims at making the working conditions of the seamen of the United States of America favorable and productive (Robertson, 1984). The objectives of enactment include safeguarding the interest of the sailors of America. The accomplishment of the Act revolves around ensuring that their employers adequately compensate the injured seamen. It also seeks to empower the seamen while at their daily duties.
Secondly, the enactment of the law aims at ensuring that the American seamen receive much priority during job selections carried out within the country boundaries. As per the act, the percentage of American seamen in the profession at a given time should not be less of seventy-five percent. The law, therefore, fosters the prioritizing of American workers over other nationalities. The act further stipulates that at any given moment, the number of vessels owned by American employers should exceed those held by none Americans. The restriction helps in the reduction and avoidance of exploitation of American seamen.
Finally and yet importantly, the Jones Act was formulated with the aim of ensuring that the United States Maritime Industry is well regulated and vibrant. The Act guarantees someone to ensure the adherence of the set legal frameworks, the practice of openness and integrity and proper operation of maritime procedures. The United States Maritime Industry needed streamlining and appropriate route of services for the swift movement of goods. All this was prompted by the need of a well develop an internal arrangement that would foster the development of commerce.
The application of the law in practice
Recently, an American warship collided with a Japanese merchant ship in Japanese waters leaving a crew of seven sailors dead. The accident was between the United States of America's navy ship USS Fitzgerald and the Philippine-registered ACX Crystal. In the beginning, the bodies' of the seven sailors were missing. A rescue mission was set to roll with emphasis targeted at finding the missing victims. The discovery of the bodies became fruitful after some aerial searches. A compartment that had received the severe impact during the accident making is inaccessible, leading to the trapping of the sailors.
Being an accident that occurred in navigable waterfronts, there was without a doubt, an interstate form of commerce. Therefore, the Jones act entirely applies. The owner of the ship, The United States Navy, is subject to investigation on any negligence from their side. In case that it is determined that there was any form of oversight, the sailors have a right to be compensated. The employer must settle medical costs of those who succumbed to injuries while the families of the bereaved need compensation for their losses.
The accident greatly gives a practical and suitable scenario that emphasis on the stipulations of the Act. The act readily addresses all the stated facts and ensures that the facts align with the timely happenings of the accident. Injured officers and a commander were given medical attention after being air flown to the United States Naval Hospital in Yokosuka base. Consequently, the settlement of the medical costs for the three officers by the United States of America's Navy became a possibility (Morrison, 1953). The unfolding of such events greatly compliments the need and importance of the Merchant Maritime Act of 1920.
The Act has facilitated the compensation for the victims of the horrible accidents and ensures that their interests upheld as per the stipulations of the Act. If it were not for the act, the sailors' deaths would be in vain, as the government would not have been compelled to settle for compensation to the slain mission sailors. Therefore, it is correct to state that the Merchant Maritime Act of 1920 has played a massive role in ensuring the adherence to the rights of seamen and their interests subordinated over their employers. Thanks to the act, seamen receive value for their devotion in their line of occupation.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Merchants Maritime Act of 1920 has significantly enhanced the relationship between seamen and their employers and has led to proper practice and coexistence between the two parties. It has resulted in the safeguarding of rights of seamen and developed job security. All these benefits accruing to the enactment of the law potentially outline the fruitfulness of the act. All countries that have not yet legislated for such clauses need to channel their efforts towards developing rules which are similar to the ones developed. The legislation will enrich the relationship and lives of seamen for the betterment of governance and control within the sea transport. It will keep the operators of water transport finding better resolutions and enhancement of how they should operate in their stay and line of duty. The enactment creates a wide scope and opens doors for the seamen at different capacities. The Act protects all people operating within the means of transport and mostly those that carry the business of shipment.
References
Morrison, S. D. (1953). The Foreign Seaman and the Jones Act. Miami LQ, 8, 16.
Robertson, D. W. (1984). Current Problems in Seamen's Remedies: Seaman Status, Relationship between Jones Act and LHWCA, and Unseaworthiness Actions by Workers Not Covered by LHWCA. La. L. Rev., 45, 875.
United States. (1988). Amendments to Merchant Marine Act, 1920: Report (to accompany H.R. 1803) (including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office). Washington, D.C.?: U.S.G.P O.
