225. Agents

General agent appointed to manage and conduct business of vessels assigned to it, whose duties were expressly and intentionally limited to those of ship’s husband, and who had no part in actual management or navigation of vessel is not liable under 46 USCS Appx § 688 to member of crew who suffered physical injury through negligence of officers and master of vessel. Cosmopolitan Shipping Co. v McAllister (1949) 337 US 783, 93 L Ed 1692, 69 S Ct 1317, reh den 338 US 839, 94 L Ed 513, 70 S Ct 32.

Ship’s husband or general agent whose principal duty consists of shoreside management of vessel with possession and control of hiring of master retained by general owner is not owner pro hac vice and is not seaman’s employer so as to be liable to him under 46 USCS Appx § 688. Cosmopolitan Shipping Co. v McAllister (1949) 337 US 783, 93 L Ed 1692, 69 S Ct 1317, reh den 338 US 839, 94 L Ed 513, 70 S Ct 32; Romero v Garcia & Diaz, Inc. (1961, CA2 NY) 286 F2d 347, 1961 AMC 592, cert den 365 US 869, 5 L Ed 2d 860, 81 S Ct 905; Cruz v Maritime Overseas Corp. (1963) 1963 AMC 1870.

Where libellant was engaged at offices of Greek Line pursuant to orders from captain of vessel, Greek Line paid expenses of his transportation to port where he joined ship, and also some of medical expenses incurred as result of assault which gave rise to libel, out of funds of agent for vessel, which agent was controlled by copartnership, Greek Line was liable under 46 USCS Appx § 688 as agent for undisclosed principal. Kyriakos v Goulandris (1945, CA2 NY) 151 F2d 132, 1945 AMC 1041.

Agent is not responsible for injury to seamen under 46 USCS Appx § 688 where, although agent did perform some general duties for vessel, he exercised no control over her master and crew, was not responsible for hiring of crewmen and had no power to fire and made no decisions concerning deployment and supervision of crew. Volyrakis v M/V Isabelle (1982, CA5 La) 668 F2d 863.

Management relationship was not sufficiently shown between agent of shipowner and plaintiff by evidence that letter guarantee plaintiff employment was written on agent’s stationery, agent arranged and paid for plaintiff’s transportation to vessel, agent reviewed welfare of employees and provided medical care for plaintiff, where agent’s actions did not involve control, direction, and supervision over plaintiff. Matute v Lloyd Bermuda Lines, Ltd. (1991, CA3 NJ) 931 F2d 231.

Even though agent for vessel owner signs shipping articles of employee, he does not become employer of seamen under Jones Act or general maritime law; junior engineer on vessel failed to establish requisite facts necessary to form employer-employee relationship, where uncontroverted facts indicated that company with which junior engineer signed employment agreement had no ownership interest in vessel in whose service junior engineer was employed, but was simply negotiating employment contract with seamen as disclosed agent on behalf of vessel owner. Stamoulos v Howland Panama S.A. (1985, ED La) 610 F Supp 454.

Administrator of deceased captain’s estate may not be held liable under 46 USCS Appx § 688 as employer of sail trainees who also died in tragic accident during tall ships race, where captain had no ownership interest in vessel; he did not share in profits from vessel’s operations; and he had no control over vessel’s itinerary beyond operational control necessarily assumed by captain, because captain was neither owner pro hac vice nor partner with owners of vessel. McAleer v Smith (1993, DC RI) 818 F Supp 486.

226. –For government entity

Owner of vessel was subject to action under 46 USCS Appx § 688 although it operated vessel in behalf of United States under general agency agreement. Brady v Roosevelt S.S. Co. (1943) 317 US 575, 87 L Ed 471, 63 S Ct 425, 1943 AMC 1, reh den 318 US 799, 87 L Ed 1163, 63 S Ct 659.

General agent of vessel owned by government and operated by War Shipping Administration is not liable under 46 USCS Appx § 688 to seaman for injury caused by negligence of officer or crew of such vessel. Cosmopolitan Shipping Co. v McAllister (1949) 337 US 783, 93 L Ed 1692, 69 S Ct 1317, 1949 AMC 1031, reh den 338 US 839, 94 L Ed 513, 70 S Ct 32; Fink v Shepard S.S. Co. (1949) 337 US 810, 93 L Ed 1709, 69 S Ct 1330, 1949 AMC 1045; Casey v American Export Lines, Inc. (1949, CA2 NY) 176 F2d 337, 1949 AMC 1510.

Alleged assault by fellow seaman aboard United States-owned ship gives no right of action under 46 USCS Appx § 688 against general agent whose duty was limited to procurement of personnel, and neither does alleged negligence in providing medical aid. Hanlon v Waterman S.S. Corp. (1959, CA2 NY) 265 F2d 206, 1959 AMC 905, cert den 361 US 822, 4 L Ed 2d 67, 80 S Ct 69.

Action under 46 USCS Appx § 688 must be against employer and cannot be against general agent even though agency relation was not disclosed to employee; motion to dismiss would be sustained where government was employer and action was against its general agent. Bohannon v American Petroleum Transp. Corp. (1949, DC NY) 86 F Supp 1003.

227. Charterers

Under 46 USCS Appx § 688, plaintiff cannot maintain action against owner of vessel who unlawfully chartered vessel to plaintiff’s employer. Osland v Star Fish & Oyster Co. (1941, CA5 Ala) 118 F2d 772, 1941 AMC 792, cert den 314 US 615, 86 L Ed 495, 62 S Ct 86, reh den 314 US 716, 86 L Ed 570, 62 S Ct 477.

Mere fact that charterer has some control over master, or that charterer selects routes to be taken or cargo to be carried does not make him owner pro hac vice. Fitzgerald v A. L. Burbank & Co. (1971, CA2 NY) 451 F2d 670, 14 ALR Fed 525.

District Court did not err by deciding as matter of law that ship operator rather than ship owner was liable employer under Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688), where ship operator’s name was on employment contract and wage receipts, ship operator managed ship, operated and chartered vessel, and paid for injured seaman’s transportation from Greece to United States to join ship. Karvelis v Constellation Lines S.A. (1986, CA2 NY) 806 F2d 49.

Vessel owner is not liable under 46 USCS Appx § 688 for action of charterer having complete charge of vessel in failing to give seaman hospital slip. Baccarat v Andrew F. Mahoney Co. (1933, DC Cal) 4 F Supp 611, 1933 AMC 1652.

One who charters vessel owned by another is liable under 46 USCS Appx § 688 for negligence resulting in injuries to member of crew employed by charterer; in such circumstances shipowner may not be held responsible. Gardiner v Agwilines (1939, DC NY) 29 F Supp 348.

228. –Bareboat or demise charter

In action by marine engineer against his employer for personal injuries, complaint alleged that defendant had chartered or leased vessel on which injuries were received from United States; even if this is construed to mean bare-boat charter, Suits in Admiralty Act (46 USCS Appx § § 741 et seq.) would not apply, and federal District Court would have jurisdiction under 46 USCS Appx § 688. Foster v Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc. (1942, CA2 NY) 131 F2d 907, 1943 AMC 42, cert den 318 US 762, 87 L Ed 1134, 63 S Ct 560.

While diver was immediate employee of one employer, bareboat charterer could be found to be diver’s employer for purposes of 46 USCS Appx § 688 depending on control bareboat charterer exercised over diving project and daily operations of divers thereby making diver’s employer simply agent of charterer and diver thereby its subagent or employee. Savard v Marine Contracting, Inc. (1972, CA2 Conn) 471 F2d 536, cert den 412 US 943, 37 L Ed 2d 404, 93 S Ct 2778.

Arrangement between vessel owner and fish processor did not amount to demise charter rendering processor liable under Jones Act as owner pro hac vice notwithstanding that (1) processor had role in manning vessel which was relatively insubstantial, (2) processor acted as ship’s agent and, under agreement for purchase and sale of fish, could generally decide where ship would go and mission it would perform, and (3) processor was creditor of vessel and financed fishing operations. Stephenson v Star-Kist Caribe, Inc. (1979, CA1 Puerto Rico) 598 F2d 676.

Boat owner was not liable to seaman for injuries where owner had bareboat charter with charterer who employed seaman, as owner received percentage of profit, but had no agreement or requirement with charterer concerning hiring and supervision of crew or operation of boat or fishing enterprise. Wheatley v Gladden (1981, CA4 Md) 660 F2d 1024.

Agreement between captain and fishing company, providing that captain would give fishing company either one-third of each catch or cash value thereof, does not make captain bareboat charterer, where agreement was verbal and provided no set duration and evidence indicated that ship repairs would be charged to fish company. Deal v A. P. Bell Fish Co. (1982, CA5 La) 674 F2d 438 later app (CA5 La) 728 F2d 717.

Demise charterer is deemed to be crew’s employer for purposes of Jones Act liability. Blanco v United States (1985, CA2 NY) 775 F2d 53.

Demise (bareboat) charterer stands in shoes of owner for purposes of imposing liability under 46 USCS Appx § 688. Puamier v Barge BT 1793 (1974, ED Va) 395 F Supp 1019, 17 UCCRS 745.

There is no authority for holding charterer liable for unseaworthiness when vessel has been subdemised and unseaworthy condition existed at time vessel owner was in possession and was brought into play by negligence of subdemisee; charterer was neither owner nor owner pro hac vice. Hamilton v Canal Barge Co. (1975, ED La) 395 F Supp 978 (disapproved on other grounds Culver v Slater Boat Co. (CA5 La) 688 F2d 280, op withdrawn, in part (CA5 La) 722 F2d 114, cert den 467 US 1252, 82 L Ed 2d 842, 104 S Ct 3537 and cert den (US) 83 L Ed 2d 37, 105 S Ct 90).

Defendant owner has no liability to plaintiff as seaman on vessel under 46 USCS Appx § 688 when demise of vessel entered into before ship construction was completed, expressly provided that all equipment on vessel should be selected by lessee who had sole duty of inspecting equipment for defects and that warranties by lessor of fitness for vessel for any particular purpose was expressly disclaimed; charter by whose terms whole vessel is let to charterer with transfer to him of its entire command and possession in consequent control over its navigation amounts to demise of vessel or bareboat charter, and charterer is generally considered owner for service stipulated. Owner’s liability upon warranty of seaworthiness at time of charter has legal substance in ordinary time of voyage charter of affreightment, but has no application to demise charter which contains express disclaimer of any warranties. Lugo v Transunion Leasing Corp. (1977, DC Del) 440 F Supp 1067.

Important legal consequence of demise or bareboat charter is that demise charterer is viewed as owner of vessel pro hac vice who becomes responsible for all in personam liability arising out of ship’s operation during demise, including obligation of seaworthiness. Lugo v Transunion Leasing Corp. (1977, DC Del) 440 F Supp 1067.

229. –Time charter

In time charter arrangements, vessel owner is proper defendant in suit under 46 USCS Appx § 688 brought by or on behalf of injured seaman. Bergan v International Freighting Corp. (1958, CA2 NY) 254 F2d 231, 1958 AMC 1303; Saridis v S.S. Paramarina (1962, ED Va) 216 F Supp 794.

United States, as time charterer, was not liable under 46 USCS Appx § 688 for injuries sustained by seaman as result of failure to have lifeboats fixed in position prescribed by Coast Guard regulations. Ryan v United States (1944, DC Pa) 57 F Supp 586, 1945 AMC 60, affd (CA3 Pa) 150 F2d 366, 1945 AMC 690.

Libel was brought against United States and marine corporation for damages under 46 USCS Appx § 688 for injuries sustained by libellant while employed as chief steward on board vessel owned by United States and for maintenance and cure; since vessel was operated and controlled by marine corporation under time charter and claim was negligence, suit was required to be dismissed except as against respondent marine corporation. Battice v United States (1948, DC NY) 79 F Supp 932.

230. Contractors

General contractor is proper 46 USCS Appx § 688 defendant even though jury determines that it did not have operational control over vessel, where injured seaman was employed by contractor and assigned to duties which bore sufficiently permanent connection to barge to qualify injured seaman as member of its crew, general contractor supervised particular operations which gave rise to seaman’s injury, and where negligence of general contractor was cause of injury. Barrios v Louisiana Constr. Materials Co. (1972, CA5 La) 465 F2d 1157.

If prime contractor has assumed enough of incidents of employer, such as right to control employee’s work, he will be deemed seaman’s employer for purposes of 46 USCS Appx § 688. Spinks v Chevron Oil Co. (1975, CA5 La) 507 F2d 216, clarified (CA5 La) 546 F2d 675 and (disagreed with by multiple cases as stated in Doucet v Gulf Oil Corp. (CA5 La) 783 F2d 518, reh den (CA5 La) 788 F2d 250).

Vessel owner may contract with others for services aboard its vessel and if it does, employees of contractor are its’ Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) employees, not Jones Act employees of owner. Saffrhan v Buck Steber, Inc. (1977, ED La) 433 F Supp 129.

231. –Particular circumstances

Where plaintiff, professional hairdresser, was hired by independent contractor to work aboard shipowner’s vessel, was paid by independent contractor, was considered employee of independent contractor, signed ship’s articles making her subject to ship’s rules and discipline, but was not responsible to shipowner for working orders nor subject to owner’s call to duty, plaintiff’s claims under 46 USCS Appx § 688 and for maintenance and cure were properly dismissed against shipowner as it was not plaintiff’s employer; independent contractor was proper party for plaintiff to sue because it was her employer. Mahramas v American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc. (1973, CA2 NY) 475 F2d 165.

Where oil company contracted with defendant to have defendant install production facilities on off shore platforms, oil company then contracted with boat company to have defendant’s workers on platform at which injury in case occurred transported there aboard large crew boat owned by boat company, and painter’s helper employed by defendant was injured while being lifted in large cargo basket by crane to platform, failure to establish that defendant enjoyed sufficient control of vessel to be held owner for occasion did not necessarily defeat 46 USCS Appx § 688 claim. Callahan v Fluor Ocean Services, Inc. (1973, CA5 La) 482 F2d 1350.

Worker normally employed upon barge that carried large dragline could not have been seaman-employee with respect to construction contractor who contracted to rent dragline for excavation of pond where injury occured on land, contractor had no connection with or control over barge, worker had never been in contractor’s employ as seaman before injury, was not employed as seaman at time of injury, and did not anticipate working for contractor as seaman in future. Guidry v South Louisiana Contractors, Inc. (1980, CA5 La) 614 F2d 447 reh den (CA5 La) 616 F2d 568.

United States has no liability under 46 USCS Appx § 668 for injuries sustained where contract between United States and third party placed no duty on United States to determine whether safe diving procedures were being practiced by subcontractors and their personnel and where work to be performed was not so inherently and particularly dangerous that United States might have special duty placed upon it. Trautman v Buck Steber, Inc. (1982, CA5 La) 693 F2d 440.

Corporation in business of supplying welding services for offshore well platform which employed seaman who was injured while standing on stern of vessel while doing repair work on drilling platform was employer for purposes of 46 USCS Appx § 688 notwithstanding that it did not have control of vessel. Bell v National Boat Corp. (1974, La App 3d Cir) 298 So 2d 327, cert den 421 US 911, 43 L Ed 2d 776, 95 S Ct 1565, reh den 421 US 981, 44 L Ed 2d 473, 95 S Ct 1984.

232. Dock owners

Impleading of wharf owner into action under 46 USCS Appx § 688 was permitted where defendant shipowner sought indemnity from wharf operator in suit arising out of personal injuries suffered by seaman due to condition of wharf where vessel was berthed. Ammesmaki v Interlake S.S. Co. (1965, CA7 Ill) 342 F2d 627.

Because 46 USCS Appx § 688 created rights in injured seamen only against their employers, judgment under § 688 cannot be entered against negligent dry dock owner which did not employ seaman. Tug Raven v Trexler (1969, CA4 Va) 419 F2d 536, cert den 398 US 938, 26 L Ed 2d 271, 90 S Ct 1843.

Owner of dock upon which seaman was injured cannot be charged with unseaworthiness, but any such claim must be made against owner of ship from which seaman is alighting. Haskins v Point Towing Co. (1970, CA3 Pa) 421 F2d 532, cert den 400 US 834, 27 L Ed 2d 66, 91 S Ct 68.

Where seaman employed on vessel moored at dock was injured by reason of negligence of owner of dock in operating equipment thereon, his remedy against owner of dock was action at common law, and such action could not be joined with action under 46 USCS Appx § 688 against owner of vessel. Eggleston v Republic Steel Corp. (1942, DC NY) 47 F Supp 658.

233. Fellow servants

In action under 46 USCS Appx § 688 by injured seaman against United States, defendant could not join as defendant fellow servant of plaintiff’s on theory that if such joinder was denied it would encourage perpetration of frauds whereby fellow servants might be induced to aid and assist claimants without fear of personal liability. Dezerene v United States (1945, DC NY) 59 F Supp 797, 1945 AMC 83.

Employee of Marine Resources Commission, state agency, could not pursue action under 46 USCS Appx § 688 against fellow employees of Commission. West v Marine Resources Com. (1970, ED Va) 330 F Supp 966.

Employee may not sue co-employee under Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688). Ivy v Security Barge Lines, Inc. (1980, ND Miss) 89 FRD 322.

Claim under 46 USCS Appx § 688 was sole avenue for negligence claims asserted by injured seamen against president of corporation that owned vessel on which they were working when injured, regardless of whether seamen were employed by corporation or merely by one of its affiliates, where either seamen and president were fellow servants or president was agent of seamen’s employer. Jurgens v Poling Transp. Corp. (2000, ED NY) 113 F Supp 2d 388.

234. Government entities–United States

United States was liable under 46 USCS Appx § 688 for death of seaman employed on fleet corporation vessel from explosion of engine constructed by contractor under supervision of engineers who were employed by government to supplement its own force of engineers. Kunschman v United States (1932, CA2 NY) 54 F2d 987, 1932 AMC 103.

In action by marine engineer against his employer for personal injuries, complaint alleged that defendant had chartered or leased vessel on which injuries were received from United States; even if this is construed to mean bare-boat charter, Suits in Admiralty Act (46 USCS Appx § § 141 et seq.) would not apply, and federal District Court would have jurisdiction under 46 Appx USCS § 688. Foster v Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc. (1942, CA2 NY) 131 F2d 907, 1943 AMC 42, cert den 318 US 762, 87 L Ed 1134, 63 S Ct 560.

Stevedore allegedly injured while working on vessel owned and operated by United States could maintain 46 USCS Appx § 688 libel against United States to recover damages for such injuries, in view of 46 USCS Appx § 781, although there was no private cargo aboard. Militano v United States (1943, DC NY) 55 F Supp 904, 1944 AMC 1250.

Where 46 USCS Appx § 688 libel by seaman for personal injuries did not allege that libellant was employee of United States through War Shipping Administration, it failed to state cause of action within admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of federal District Court. Siclana v United States (1944, DC NY) 56 F Supp 442, 1944 AMC 696.

United States, as time charterer, was not liable under 46 USCS Appx § 688 for injuries sustained by seaman as result of failure to have lifeboats fixed in position prescribed by coast guard regulations. Ryan v United States (1944, DC Pa) 57 F Supp 586, 1945 AMC 60, affd (CA3 Pa) 150 F2d 366, 1945 AMC 690.

Libel was brought against United States and marine corporation for damages under 46 USCS Appx § 688 for injuries sustained by libellant while employed as chief steward on board vessel owned by United States and for maintenance and cure; since vessel was operated and controlled by marine corporation under time charter and claim was negligence, suit was required to be dismissed except as against respondent marine corporation. Battice v United States (1948, DC NY) 79 F Supp 932.

Jones Act, 46 USCS Appx § 688, applies only to vessels of private ownership or operation; when vessel is owned by United States or by corporation in which United States or its representatives owns entire capital stock rights under 46 USCS Appx § 688 are enforceable by Suits in Admiralty Act, 46 USCS Appx § § 741 et seq. Schwecke v United States (1951, DC Cal) 96 F Supp 225.

U.S., as owner of vessel, was liable for total and permanent disability of seaman, where injuries resulted from actions by chief Steward, because under Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) employers are responsible for negligence of persons employed by them. Cella v United States (1992, ND Ind) 825 F Supp 1383, affd (CA7 Ind) 998 F2d 418, 37 Fed Rules Evid Serv 1229, reh, en banc, den (CA7 Ind) 1993 US App LEXIS 20311.

Seaman injured while aboard vessel of War Shipping Administration is entitled to all rights under law applicable to citizens of United States employed as seamen on privately owned and operated American vessels. Cohen v American Petroleum Transport Corp. (1947) 188 Misc 465, 68 NYS2d 250.

235. –States and state agencies

Bi-state corporation is not immune from suit brought in federal court under 46 USCS Appx § 688 to recover for death of employee of corporation aboard ferryboat operated by corporation when it sank. Petty v Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Com. (1959) 359 US 275, 3 L Ed 2d 804, 79 S Ct 785.

State employee-seaman is barred by Eleventh Amendment from suing state in Federal District Court for claims under Jones Act (46 USCS Appendix § 688). Collins v Alaska (1987, CA9 Wash) 823 F2d 329.

State which owned and operated vessel waived its sovereign immunity as to suits under 46 USCS Appx § 688 by its employees on board vessel for negligence, but did not waive its immunity as to claims based on general maritime law in unseaworthiness. Cocherl v Alaska, (1965, DC Alaska) 246 F Supp 328, 1966 AMC 1228.

Congress intended and had power to subject state to suit in federal court under 46 USCS Appx § 688 just as it did under 33 USCS § § 901 et seq. Huckins v Board of Regents (1967, ED Mich) 263 F Supp 622, 1968 AMC 697.

Parent’s federal statutory causes of action against board of trustees of state university arising out of son’s apparent death during scuba diving for marine life course must be dismissed, because Congress did not, in Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) or Death on High Seas Act (46 USCS Appx § § 761 et seq.) abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity afforded state instrumentalities. Harvis v Board of Trustees of University of Illinois (1990, ND Ill) 744 F Supp 825.

Suit may not be brought against State in its own courts under 46 USCS Appx § 688 without State’s consent; plea in abatement of action filed under § 688 by crew member of vessel belonging to state university would be sustained where no statute of state authorized such suit. Lyons v Texas A & M University (1976, Tex Civ App Houston (14th Dist)) 545 SW2d 56, writ ref n r e.

236. –Municipalities

46 USCS Appx § 688 applies to municipality when it owns and operates vessel in navigation. Jacob v New York City (1942) 315 US 752, 86 L Ed 1166, 62 S Ct 854; Pariser v New York (1645, CA2 NY) 146 F2d 431; Hendriksen v Chicago (1946) 330 Ill App 141, 70 NE2d 848.

Although 46 USCS Appx § 688 endowed seamen with right of action against their employers for negligence, it did not give permission to sue state or civil division thereof; New York City cannot be sued under § 688. Levine v New York (1957) 8 Misc 2d 410, 167 NYS2d 980.

237. Miscellaneous

Greek corporation almost wholly owned by Greek citizen who had been for many years permanent resident of United States and who conducted his business in New York was employer under 46 USCS Appx § 688 where ship on which seaman was injured was earning income from cargo originating or terminating in United States. Hellenic Lines, Ltd. v Rhoditis (1970) 398 US 306, 26 L Ed 2d 252, 90 S Ct 1731, reh den 400 US 856, 27 L Ed 2d 94, 91 S Ct 23.

In order for any mortgagee, guarantor of mortgage, or any similar encumbrancer, not holder of equitable title, to be held to be employer for purposes of 46 USCS Appx § 688, he must exercise exclusive actual control over vessel’s operation; that is, either he or his agent must be in charge of details of operating vessel, such as engaging master, hiring crew, and furnishing fuel, food and supplies; because it is so unlikely that any mortgagee will have such control, burden of proving it is on one who asserts it. Fitzgerald v A. L. Burbank & Co. (1971, CA2 NY) 451 F2d 670, 14 ALR Fed 525.

Pilot association which owned pilot boat, which association was owned by benevolent association, was liable for negligent operation of pilot boat. Peterson v United New York Sandy Hook Pilots Asso. (1935, DC NY) 11 F Supp 411, 1935 AMC 1031, mod (CA2 NY) 82 F2d 758, 1936 AMC 334, cert den 298 US 684, 80 L Ed 1404, 56 S Ct 954.

Board of Regents of University of Michigan as owners of vessel upon which seaman was injured are subject to action by seaman under 46 USCS Appx § 688. Huckins v Board of Regents (1967, ED Mich) 263 F Supp 622.

President of ship’s corporate owner is not personally liable for injuries to crew members when crew members at all times looked to corporation as their employer, and not to president personally. Puamier v Barge BT 1793 (1974, ED Va) 395 F Supp 1019, 17 UCCRS 745.

Successor corporation was not “employer” of deceased seaman where it purchased assets of seaman’s employer over two weeks after accident on which claim was based and plaintiff had failed to adduce any facts to establish either that successor had succeeded to rights and liabilities of predecessor or that successor represented mere continuation of predecessor. Groover v West Coast Shipping Co. (1979, SD NY) 479 F Supp 950.

For purposes of Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688), United States corporation which owns Brazilian subsidiary by which injured Brazilian worker is employed and which owns oil drilling rig upon which worker was performing his duties at time of worker’s injury may be found to be worker’s employer. Das Chagas v Sedco, Inc. (1983, ED Pa) 557 F Supp 442.

Trainee’s Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) claim is denied summarily, even though he suffered heart attack while participating in toxic spill drill on derelict barge while training to become tankerman, because barge owner was not Jones Act employer and Act only allows seaman to sue his employer. Speer v Taira Lynn Marine, Ltd. (2000, SD Tex) 116 F Supp 2d 826.