Maritime Personal Injury Lawyers

When a personal injury case is subject to federal maritime law, it will be governed by different substantive and procedural laws than an ordinary tort case. For the most part, the rules and laws under maritime law are more advantageous to the plaintiff.

For starters, federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction over all maritime cases. This means that the plaintiff in a maritime personal injury case will have a choice of venue between state court and federal court. It is very unlikely, however, that a tort plaintiff would ever choose to file in federal court. Federal courts are generally a much less favorable venue for personal injury plaintiffs compared to state courts. This is absolutely true in Maryland. Moreover, if you bring a maritime tort case in federal court there is no right to a jury trial.

When personal injury cases fall under maritime law the plaintiff’s negligence claims and the amount of damages they are entitled to will be determined by maritime law rather than state tort law. Maritime tort law offers plaintiffs 2 key advantages over Maryland state law:

No Caps on Damages: Maryland law imposes maximum limits or “caps” on the amount of non-economic (i.e., “pain and suffering”) damages that a tort plaintiff can be awarded. Maryland’s damages cap can often prevent an accident victim from getting full and fair compensation for their injuries. When a personal injury case falls under maritime law, however, state law caps on damages are not applicable. This means plaintiffs in maritime personal injury cases have no limit on the amount of pain & suffering damages they can be awarded.

No Contributory Negligence Rule: Maryland is one of only 5 states that continues to apply the old rule of contributory negligence in personal injury cases. Under this harsh rule, if a plaintiff’s own negligence contributes in ANY way to the accident (even if it only contributes 5%) then they are barred from recovering any damages for their injuries. Under this rule, if a plaintiff is 10% at fault and the defendant is 90% at-fault, the plaintiff gets nothing. Personal injury claims under maritime law are not subject to this harsh rule. Instead, maritime tort law applies the modern rule of “comparative negligence.” Under comparative negligence, a plaintiff’s share of the fault simply reduces the amount of damages they can recover. So if the plaintiff is 10% at fault, their damages will be reduced by 10.

Settlement Value of Maritime Injury Lawsuits

Just like other types of injury cases, the settlement value of maritime injury cases is based on a number of different factors. The factor that impacts the settlement value of an individual case the most is the severity of the plaintiff’s injury. More serious injuries that require extensive medical care and result in permanent disabilities always have a much higher potential maritime settlement amounts.

In maritime lawsuits, particularly in states like Maryland that have caps on certain types of damages, another factor that impacts settlement value is whether the case is brought under the Jones Act as opposed to state tort law. Cases brought under the Jones Act are not subject to the damages caps that apply under Maryland law, so Jones Act cases have a higher potential settlement value. Many Maryland personal injury lawyers do no know this and sometimes sell their clients short as a result.

Maritime Injury Settlements and Verdicts

Below are summaries of verdicts and settlements in maritime injury cases. These include both Jones Act injury cases and maritime injury cases brought outside of the Jones Act.

• $7,000,000 Verdict (New York 2024): The plaintiff, a 50-year-old seaman, sustained injuries resulting in cervical stenosis with possible spinal cord compression, requiring cervical fusion surgery, and chronic regional pain syndrome (CRPS) in his right arm, leaving him unable to work. Represented by a Jones Act lawyer, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming that the defendants’ vessel, crew, and equipment were unseaworthy, causing his injuries. The defendants disputed the CRPS diagnosis and argued that the cervical spine condition was pre-existing and degenerative. The jury awarded $2,000,000 for past pain and suffering and $5,000,000 for future pain and suffering.
• $2,218,000 Verdict (Florida 2024): The plaintiff was working as a deckhand on a vessel in the Gulf of Mexico. Another employee on the vessel was operating a crane on the deck and lifting an 800-pound object when he accidentally struck the plaintiff’s foot with the object at the end of the crane. The plaintiff filed suit under the Jones Act. Liability was admitted but the defendant contested the extent of the plaintiff’s damages.
• $8,000,000 Verdict (Maryland 2023): The plaintiff was working on a vessel when a sealing plug on a pip under pressure came loose and struck him in the head at high speed. He suffered a fractured skull and was diagnosed with brain damage resulting in permanent mental disorders leaving him unable to work. The lawsuit alleged that the company responsible for the vessel was negligent in failing to follow the instructions for sealing plug, which ultimately led to the accident.
• $1,800,000 Verdict (Louisiana 2023): The plaintiff was working on a boat in the Mississippi River, which was traveling through a busy section of the river without the assistance of barges or tugs. The boat collided with another large boat that was moored at a nearby dock. The plaintiff was violently thrown to the deck during the collision and allegedly suffered herniated disc injuries to his spine (requiring surgery), and a tendon tear in his shoulder which required multiple arthroscopic surgeries to repair. He filed an action under the Jones Act.
• $850,000 Verdict (Wisconsin 2022): The plaintiff was a representative for a maritime steering equipment manufacturing company. He was on a newly built tugboat testing the function of the new steering system when then captain of the boat made a sudden maneuver without warning causing the vessel to pitch very sharply. The plaintiff was throw up against a metal table and suffered injuries to his head and back resulting in a traumatic brain injury. The lawsuit alleged negligence against the tugboat owner.
• $2,500,000 Verdict (Missouri 2022): The plaintiff was working as a deckhand on a river barge when a steel cable nearby him on the deck suddenly snapped causing him to fall hard onto the deck. The plaintiff alleged that he suffered a dislocated kneecap as a result of the accident. He returned to work, but allegedly suffered ongoing issues with the knee and claimed that he needed to undergo surgery. He filed under the Jones Act claiming that the company was negligent in failing to maintain the vessel in safe order.