LINKS

ENGLISH ONLY
















WHO WE ARE? WHY HIRE AN EXPERIENCED MARITIME ATTORNEY? MAP TO OUR FT. LAUDERDALE OFFICE WHAT IS DIFFERENT ABOUT MARITIME LAW?

The Jones Act Sections 59-99

TITLE 46. APPENDIX. SHIPPING
CHAPTER 18. MERCHANT SEAMAN
PROTECTION AND RELIEF
46 USCS Appx § 688 (2002)

TO FIND THE SECTION OF YOUR CHOICE PLEASE CLICK ON "CONTROL+F"

CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO SECTION INDEX

SECTIONS § 059 - 099
59. Voyage to or from American port

Provisions of Jones Act, 46 USCS Appx § 688, are limited to seamen at work upon domestic vessels. The Seirstad (1928, DC NY) 27 F2d 982.

Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) is not applicable to suit for injuries suffered by seaman during voyage between Britain and America on British vessel, despite fact that ship was built specifically for Britain-New York run, stayed in New York equally as long as in Britain, and took on as many supplies in one country as in the other, since vessel is foreign vessel on grounds that it is owned by British corporation and sails under British flag. Catherall v Cunard S.S. Co. (1951, DC NY) 101 F Supp 230.

Foreign seaman, who signs on foreign ship in foreign port, does not come under 46 USCS Appx § 688 merely because foreign ship enters American ports. Tselentis v Michalinos Maritime & Commercial Co. (1952, DC NY) 104 F Supp 942.

Alien seaman serving upon foreign ships owned by aliens, and bound upon voyage which begins and ends outside United States, cannot sue under Jones Act, 46 USCS Appx § 688, for injuries suffered while ship happens to be stopping at port of call within United States waters. Romero v International Terminal Operating Co. (1956, DC NY) 142 F Supp 570, affd (CA2 NY) 244 F2d 409, vacated on other grounds 358 US 354, 3 L Ed 2d 368, 79 S Ct 468, reh den 359 US 962, 3 L Ed 2d 769, 79 S Ct 795.

Greek law, not 46 USCS Appx § 688, was applicable in plaintiff-seaman's action where plaintiff signed employment contract in Greece, contract provided that dispute between parties would be resolved by Greek law, plaintiff was injured aboard vessel while it was on "high seas" en route to Virginia, corporation owning vessel was Panamanian controlled by Greek national having no contact with the United States, and vessel flew "flag of Greece." Sfiridas v Santa Cecelia Co., S.A. (1973, ED Pa) 358 F Supp 108, affd without op (CA3 Pa) 493 F2d 1401.

Plaintiff could not file complaint for damages under 46 USCS Appx § 688 where record reflected that: plaintiff was citizen and domiciliary of Spain; contract of employment was signed in Spain and was written in Spanish and Norwegian; contract provided that plaintiff's rights and obligations were those under Norwegian law; plaintiff was receiving benefits in accord therewith; defendant was Norwegian corporation and ship, upon which plaintiff was employed, was of Norwegian flag and registry; accident occurred on High Seas off coast of Bahamas; and plaintiff's only contact with United States was upon ship's arrival in port to pick up passengers and supplies. Valverde v Klosters Rederi A/S (1974, Fla App D3) 294 So 2d 101.

60. Injury in American port or waters

Maritime law of United States, including 46 USCS Appx § 688, may not be applied in action involving injury sustained in American port by foreign seaman on board foreign vessel in course of voyage beginning and ending in foreign country. Romero v International Terminal Operating Co. (1959) 358 US 354, 3 L Ed 2d 368, 79 S Ct 468, reh den 359 US 962, 3 L Ed 2d 769, 79 S Ct 795.

46 USCS Appx § 688 does not give its statutory right of action to foreign seaman signing on foreign vessel at foreign port, notwithstanding occurrence of injury in port of United States. The Paula (1937, CA2 NY) 91 F2d 1001, 1937 AMC 988, cert den 302 US 750, 82 L Ed 580, 58 S Ct 270; Gambera v Bergoty (1942, CA2 NY) 132 F2d 414, 1943 AMC 45, cert den 319 US 742, 87 L Ed 1699, 63 S Ct 1030; The Magdapur (1933, DC NY) 3 F Supp 971, 1933 AMC 831, (disapproved on other grounds Waldron v Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc. 386 US 724, 18 L Ed 2d 482, 87 S Ct 1410).

Maryland federal District Court had constitutional jurisdiction over action under 46 USCS Appx § 688 brought by Greek national injured in Maryland port against tramp steamer with no scheduled route owned by Panamanian corporation and registered under Greek flag, which vessel had been in Maryland ports on six occasions during nine-year period. Gkiafis v S.S. Yiosonas (1965, CA4 Md) 342 F2d 546, 1965 AMC 1411, on remand (DC Md) 254 F Supp 825, affd in part and revd in part on other grounds (CA4 Md) 387 F2d 460.

Seaman's claim under 46 USCS Appx § 688 was properly dismissed by District Court where (1) seaman was citizen and resident of Greece who executed his contract of employment there, (2) ship flew Liberian flag and was owned by Liberian corporation with principal place of business and "base of operations" in Greece, all of whose shares were owned by Greek citizens and residents, (3) shipowner was amenable to suit in Greece, (4) all crew members on duty at time of alleged accident were alien seamen, and (5) vessel involved was only vessel owned by shipowner; fact that seaman's injuries occurred off coast of United States was purely fortuitous and factor of minimal importance which, standing alone, was not substantial contact with United States. Koupetoris v Konkar Intrepid Corp. (1976, CA2 NY) 535 F2d 1392.

Greek seamen is not entitled to bring action under 46 USCS Appx § 688 where fact that injury occurred in United States waters is sole factor in favor of applying United States law where seamen is Greek citizen, vessel sales under Greek flag, corporation owning vessel is Panamanian and is owned and managed by Greeks, Greek forum is not inaccessible and contract of employment selected Greece as forum for resolution of all disputes arising out of employment relationship. Volykrakis v M/V Isabelle (1982, CA5 La) 668 F2d 863.

Widow of Greek sailor who died while ship was berthed in American port could not sue under Jones Act for husband's death where shipowner and employer was Greek corporation, its vessels flew Greek flag and were registered under Greek law, widow and sailor were Greek citizens and domiciliaries, and contract of employment between sailor and employer was drafted and executed in Greece and made Greek law in Greek courts controlling over rights and liabilities arising from relationship; fortuitous location of wrong was relatively unimportant factor in maritime context. Dracos v Hellenic Lines, Ltd. (1985, CA4 Va) 762 F2d 348, cert den (US) 88 L Ed 2d 288, 106 S Ct 311.

Citizen of Sweden who signed on Swedish ship for voyage to United States could not sue for damages incurred on vessel while on coastwise run between New York and Jacksonville. Johansson v. O. F. Ahlmark & Co. (1952, DC NY) 107 F Supp 70.

46 USCS Appx § 688 is not applicable in action by Greek citizen for injuries which occurred on board ship flying Liberian flag while such ship was in United States port even though flying of Liberian flag may have been to accomplish such result. Markakis v Liberian S/S The Mparmpa Christos (1958, DC NY) 161 F Supp 487.

In 46 USCS Appx § 688 action involving injury sustained in American port by foreign seaman aboard foreign vessel in course of voyage beginning and ending in foreign country, appropriate course is for federal district court to deny § 68 claim on merits; but this denial of § 688 claim on merits leaves court free to consider whether, with due regard to doctrine of forum non conveniens, it should take jurisdiction and apply relevant foreign law. Volkenburg v Nederland-Amerik, Stoomv. Maats (1963, DC Mass) 221 F Supp 925, 1964 AMC 53, affd (CA1 Mass) 336 F2d 480, 1964 AMC 1958, 8 FR Serv 2d 34.13, Case 12.

Argentine sailor on Argentine ship could not sue under 46 USCS Appx § 688 for injury occurring in United States port. Serrano v Empresa Lineas Maritimas Argentinas (1966, DC Md) 257 F Supp 870, 10 FR Serv 2d 383.

46 USCS Appx § 688 action was dismissed on ground of forum nonconveniens where citizen of Greece jumped to his death from ship into Hudson River; deceased's widow was citizen and resident of Greece, owner of vessel was corporation organized and existing under laws of Liberia and said corporation was neither owned nor controlled by United States citizens, none of stock of owner of vessel was owned by United States citizen, vessel was engaged in carrying passengers and was registered under laws of Greece, decedent joined crew of vessel and agreed that any claim arising out of his employment would be settled according to Greek law, and vessel was departing from New York Harbor to Greece when decedent committed suicide. Xerakis v Greek Line, Inc. (1974, ED Pa) 382 F Supp 774.

46 USCS Appx § 688 is inapplicable to suit by crewmembers of tank vessel which suffered explosions and fire while tied up at Pennsylvania refinery where vessel was Greek vessel, none of crew members or officers were American citizens, all crew members signed employment contracts in Greece which provided for exclusive jurisdiction of Greek courts, and there was no ownership or interest in vessel by U.S. citizen or resident. Re Lidoriki Maritime Corp. (1975, ED Pa) 404 F Supp 1402.

61. Multiple American contacts present

Fact that Norwegian shipowner maintained American husbanding agent in New York is insufficient to require application of Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) in suit by Norwegian seaman for injuries sustained in American waters aboard ship owned by Norwegian shipowner. Nakken v Fearnley & Eger (1955, DC NY) 137 F Supp 288.

Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) does not apply to Greek seaman's suit for personal injuries sustained in American waters aboard Liberian registered and Panamanian owned vessel, although Panamanian corporation employed American husbanding agent which arranged for tugs, pilots, stevedores, and customs clearance, since foreign corporation's contacts are insufficient to warrant application of Act. Damaskinos v Societa Navigacion Interamericana, S. A., Panama (1966, SD NY) 255 F Supp 919.

46 USCS Appx § 688 was not applicable to action by Philippine seamen for injuries allegedly sustained by them aboard Norwegian vessel in Lake Michigan, notwithstanding that managing owner of vessel owned or controlled United States corporation which acted as its general agent in United States; neither mere use nor mere ownership of agent in United States by shipowner suggested that shipowner's base of operations was in United States, and extension of base of operations doctrine to enterprise whose link to United States was that tenuous was not warranted. Manlugon v A/S Facto (1976, SD NY) 419 F Supp 550.

Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) applies to Syrian seaman's personal injury claim, notwithstanding Greek registry of ship, Liberian ownership, contract in Greek providing for Greek law to apply, and availability of foreign forum, where accident occurred in United States waters and ship had substantial and continuous business contact with United States. Dalla v Atlas Maritime Co. (1983, CD Cal) 562 F Supp 752, affd (CA9 Cal) 771 F2d 1277.

c. Foreign Flag Vessels Owned or Operated by American Interests

62. Generally

Alien seaman injured on American-owned vessel of foreign registry could avail himself of 46 USCS Appx § 688. Carroll v United States (1943, CA2 NY) 133 F2d 690, 1943 AMC 339.

Although ownership is important factor, Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) does not apply to Greek seaman's suit for breach of contract against Liberian vessel ultimately owned and controlled by American citizen, since American ownership is not sole determinative factor and since vessel did not regularly engage in substantial commerce with territory of United States. Anastasiadis v S.S. Little John (1965, CA5 Tex) 346 F2d 281, reh den (CA5 Tex) 347 F2d 823 and cert den 384 US 920, 16 L Ed 2d 440, 86 S Ct 1368.

Congress did not intend for 46 USCS Appx § 688 to apply merely because in series of interlocking, multinational corporations, ownership is ultimately in hands of American corporation. De Mateos v Texaco, Inc. (1977, CA3 Pa) 562 F2d 895, cert den 435 US 904, 55 L Ed 2d 494, 98 S Ct 1449.

District Court had jurisdiction of action brought by foreign seamen for injuries sustained aboard foreign ship at sea, where plaintiffs shipped from San Francisco for round trip voyage and ship was being operated by American citizens, residents of San Francisco. The Sinaloa (1923, DC Cal) 292 F 640.

American seaman injured on ship owned by American corporation is entitled to benefit of 46 USCS Appx § 688 even though ship is registered under foreign flag. Gerradin v United Fruit Co. (1931, DC NY) 51 F2d 417, 1931 AMC 1425, affd (CA2 NY) 60 F2d 927, 1933 AMC 81, cert den 287 US 642, 77 L Ed 556, 53 S Ct 92.

Alien seaman on foreign vessel under time-charter to American corporation did not acquire any status as "American seaman" which might be factor in moving admiralty court, in its discretion, to assume protection of his rights under 46 USCS Appx § 688. The Lynghaug (1941, DC Pa) 42 F Supp 713, 1941 AMC 1585.

American citizen and shipowner cannot have benefit of American trade and operation and then, through placing ownership and registration in foreign corporations, deprive American court of jurisdiction; court may press beyond formalities of more or less nominal registration to enforce against American shipowners obligations which American law places upon them. Voyiatzis v National Shipping & Trading Corp. (1961, SD NY) 199 F Supp 920.

Jurisdiction under 46 USCS Appx § 688 was denied for want of even minimal connection with United States where facts indicated that of four defendants, only one was incorporated in United States, and that it was owned by foreign shareholders; plaintiff was treated in United States hospital and ship was destined for, but outside, United States waters at time of commission of tort. Brillis v Chandris (U.S.A.) Inc. (1963, SD NY) 215 F Supp 520, 1963 AMC 1742.

American ownership and control is factor of significance in determining whether 46 USCS Appx § 688 is to be applied. Lascaratos v S/T Olympic Flame (1964, ED Pa) 227 F Supp 161.

46 USCS Appx § 688 applied to action for death of seaman occurring on Liberian registered ship which was ultimately owned by United States citizens. Groves v Universe Tankships, Inc. (1970, SD NY) 308 F Supp 826.

Because foreign incorporation of defendant corporation which owned and operated vessel, and foreign registration of vessel, were facade designed to disguise American beneficial ownership, operation and control and to avoid consequences of American shipping laws, 46 USCS Appx § 688 was applicable to claim asserted by plaintiff where plaintiff was Greek National residing in Greece, he was hired in Greece as engineering member of crew of subject vessel, vessel was registered in Panama and flew that Nation's flag, vessel was owned and operated by Panamanian corporations, plaintiff and other crew members signed standard form Panamanian articles while vessel was in Italy, when vessel was again in Italy plaintiff and other crew members executed agreement which made reference to employment under terms of Greek collective bargaining agreement with regard to working conditions and wages, and plaintiff was injured while working in ship's generator room at time when vessel was on High Seas, some 5 hours out of port of St. Thomas, Virgin Islands. Pandazopoulos v Universal Cruise Line, Inc. (1973, SD NY) 365 F Supp 208.

Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) was not applicable to actions arising out of explosion at gas compression/reinjection plant which killed employees aboard crewboat where only factor which would support application of United States law was allegiance of shipowner (plant owner being Delaware corporation) whereas (1) all plaintiffs' decedents were Venezuelan citizens who were working at time of accident on Venezuelan-registered vessel in Venezuelan waters, (2) Venezuela was most accessible forum, and (3) business operation from which alleged liability arose was based in Venezuela. De Alvarez v Creole Petroleum Corp. (1978, DC Del) 462 F Supp 782, affd (CA3 Del) 613 F2d 1240.

Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) is not applicable to suit brought for death of Honduran seaman aboard Panamanian vessel while in Persian Gulf; fact that ultimate owner of ship assisted wholly-owned Panamanian subsidiary in pre-employment transportation of seaman, as well as obtaining settlement after his death, does not demonstrate that base of operations of seaman's direct employer is in United States. James v Gulf International Marine Corp. (1982, ED La) 554 F Supp 682, revd, in part, without op (CA5 La) 731 F2d 886, later app (CA5 La) 777 F2d 193.

63. American agent

Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) is applied to suit by Greek seaman for injuries sustained aboard Liberian registered and Panamanian owned ship since sole stockholder of Panamanian ship-owning corporation was American citizen and ship was operated by American corporation using agent in United States. Voyiatzis v National Shipping & Trading Corp. (1961, SD NY) 199 F Supp 920.

Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) does not apply to Greek seaman's suit for injuries suffered on high seas aboard Greek registered and Panamanian owned ship, despite seaman's allegation that American agent which managed ship through Bermuda corporation was in fact one of real owners of corporate shipowner. Sfiridas v Santa Cecelia Co., S.A. (1973, ED Pa) 358 F Supp 108, affd without op (CA3 Pa) 493 F2d 1401.

64. American parent corporation

District Court had no discretionary power to refuse to adjudicate case brought under 46 USCS Appx § 688 by an alien seaman, assaulted within territorial waters of United States, aboard ship flying Liberian flag, owned by Liberian corporation which was wholly owned by Panamanian corporation, all stock in which was owned by United States citizens, on voyage from Baltimore to Philadelphia, articles for which were signed in Baltimore, which seaman had signed declaration of intention to become United States citizen few months after assault. Bartholomew v Universe Tankships, Inc. (1959, CA2 NY) 263 F2d 437, 1959 AMC 273, 1 FR Serv 2d 621, cert den 359 US 1000, 3 L Ed 2d 1030, 79 S Ct 1138 (disagreed with De Mateos v Texaco, Inc. (CA3 Pa) 562 F2d 895, cert den 435 US 904, 55 L Ed 2d 494, 98 S Ct 1449) and (disagreed with Chiazor v Transworld Drilling Co. (CA5 La) 648 F2d 1015, reh den (CA5 La) 659 F2d 1075 and cert den 455 US 1019, 72 L Ed 2d 136, 102 S Ct 1714) as stated in Vaz Borralho v Keydril Co. (CA5 Tex) 696 F2d 379, reh den (CA5 Tex) 710 F2d 207 and (disagreed with Tallentire v Offshore Logistics, Inc. (CA5 La) 754 F2d 1274, revd on other grounds (US) 91 L Ed 2d 174, 106 S Ct 2485).

Citizen of Poland, but resident of United States, was injured in Panama while working as seaman on vessel of Honduran registry owned by Honduran company, all of whose stock was owned by United States company; effect was given to nationality of actual control of ship so that seaman could maintain action for injuries under 46 USCS Appx § 688 despite fact he had signed articles reciting that all rights and obligations were governed exclusively by laws of Republic of Honduras. Zielinski v Empresa Hondurena De Vapores (1953, DC NY) 113 F Supp 93.

Although Puerto Rican shipowning corporation is wholly-owned subsidiary of Pennsylvania corporation, Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) does not apply to suit by Puerto Rican seaman for injuries sustained in Port of San Juan while working aboard Puerto Rican tug, since parent corporation is not liable for acts of subsidiary unless subsidiary is mere instrumentality of parent. Fanfan v Berwind Corp. (1973, ED Pa) 362 F Supp 793.

Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) is applicable to German seaman's suit for injury sustained aboard ship on high seas where Canadian corporate owner is owned by Texas corporation, since Canadian and American corporations are substantially interrelated, and registration in Canada was for tax and other economic considerations. Rode v Sedco, Inc. (1975, ED Tex) 394 F Supp 206.

United States law was applicable to action brought by Public Administrator on behalf of widow and relatives of deceased foreign seaman, based upon 46 USCS Appx § 688 and general maritime law, where vessel owner was foreign corporation wholly owned by New York corporation which was wholly owned by citizens of United States and residents of New York. Fitzgerald v Angela Compania Naviera, S. A. (1976, SD NY) 417 F Supp 151 revd on other grounds (CA2 NY) 592 F2d 58, cert dismd 443 US 928, 61 L Ed 2d 897, 100 S Ct 15.

United States law was not applicable to action brought by representative of deceased seaman, notwithstanding that vessel was owned by Panamanian corporation which was wholly owned subsidiary of United States corporation, where (1) injury occurred either on high seas or in port of Honduras or Costa Rica, (2) seaman was Panamanian citizen who executed employment contract in Panama, (3) there was no evidence that Panamanian corporation was "facade" to enable United States corporation to avoid its obligations under United States maritime law, and (4) plaintiff, who was also citizen and resident of Panama, had already sued in Panama on same claim and had had that claim fully adjudicated; action would be dismissed on basis of forum non conveniens. De Mateos v Texaco Panama, Inc. (1976, ED Pa) 417 F Supp 411, affd (CA3 Pa) 562 F2d 895, cert den 435 US 904, 55 L Ed 2d 494, 98 S Ct 1449.

Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) is applicable to Portuguese seaman's suit for injuries sustained in Great Britain aboard Panamanian registered and Dutch owned vessel where Panamanian and Dutch corporations, for all practical purposes, are operated from home office of parent corporation in Texas, and Dutch shipowner's contacts with United States are substantial and both Panamanian and Dutch corporations are ultimately owned by American corporation. Castanho v Jackson Marine, Inc. (1980, ED Tex) 484 F Supp 201, affd in part and app dismd in part (CA5 Tex) 650 F2d 546, reh den (CA5 Tex) 656 F2d 700 and reh den (CA5 Tex) 656 F2d 700.

United States does not have sufficient interest to justify jurisdiction under Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) for injuries sustained by Brazilian seaman working aboard Brazilian drilling barge off coast of Brazil where only American involvement was ownership by 2 U.S. companies of all stock of Brazilian company that owned drilling rig, even though U.S. companies exercised some supervisory and administrative responsibility for Brazilian company. Dos Santos v Reading & Bates Drilling Co. (1980, ED La) 495 F Supp 843.

65. American stock ownership in foreign owner

Action under 46 USCS Appx § 688 for injuries sustained on ship flying Honduras flag could be maintained where it appeared that only contacts ship had with Honduras were flag and articles, in that ship was owned by Liberian corporation, all stock of which was owned by Greek and American citizens, orders directing movements of vessel came partly from American and partly from Greek owners, members of crew were residents of Greece, except for two residents of United States, injury occurred in American port, and vessel had never, in any of its voyages, visited Hondurian port. Southern Cross S.S. Co. v Firipis (1960, CA4 Va) 285 F2d 651, 84 ALR2d 895, 1961 AMC 621, cert den 365 US 869, 5 L Ed 2d 859, 81 S Ct 903 and (disagreed with Swain v Isthmian Lines, Inc. (CA3 Pa) 360 F2d 81 (disagreed with Chung, Yong Il v Overseas Navigation Co. (CA11 Ala) 774 F2d 1043, reh den, en banc (CA11 Ala) 779 F2d 60 and reh den, en banc (CA11 Ala) 779 F2d 60 and cert den (US) 90 L Ed 2d 346, 106 S Ct 1802)) and (disapproved on other grounds Griffin v Oceanic Contractors, Inc., 458 US 564, 73 L Ed 2d 973, 102 S Ct 3245, on remand (CA5 Tex) 685 F2d 139).

District Court erred in failing to apply 46 USCS Appx § 688 to action by Greek seaman for injuries allegedly sustained while vessel was on high seas where (1) at least some stockholders of vessel owner were American citizens, (2) vessel was operating on liner service conducted by New York corporation and vessel was under direct control of that corporation and (3) earnings from vessel appeared to be collected in New York and expenses of vessel paid from New York; such contacts were substantial and predominated over such factors as ship's flag, place of incorporation of shipowner, and seaman's nationality. Antypas v Cia. Maritima San Basilio, S. A. (1976, CA2 NY) 541 F2d 307, cert den 429 US 1098, 51 L Ed 2d 545, 97 S Ct 1116 and (disagreed with De Mateos v Texaco, Inc. (CA3 Pa) 562 F2d 895, cert den 435 US 904, 55 L Ed 2d 494, 98 S Ct 1449) and (disagreed with Chiazor v Transworld Drilling Co. (CA5 La) 648 F2d 1015, reh den (CA5 La) 659 F2d 1075 and cert den 455 US 1019, 72 L Ed 2d 136, 102 S Ct 1714) as stated in Vaz Borralho v Keydril Co. (CA5 Tex) 696 F2d 379, reh den (CA5 Tex) 710 F2d 207 and (disagreed with Tallentire v Offshore Logistics, Inc. (CA5 La) 754 F2d 1274, revd on other grounds (US) 91 L Ed 2d 174, 106 S Ct 2485) and (disagreed with Cruz v Maritime Co. of Philippines (CA2 NY) 702 F2d 47 (disagreed with Pereira v Utah Transport, Inc. (CA9 Cal) 764 F2d 686, cert dismd (US) 89 L Ed 2d 362, 106 S Ct 1253)).

Employee seamen on board vessels owned by corporation whose stock is owned by multinational business enterprise incorporated in Delaware are not entitled to recover under 46 USCS Appx § 688 if fact that corporation is incorporated in Delaware and some of stockholders are American is only contact with United States. De Mateos v Texaco, Inc. (1977, CA3 Pa) 562 F2d 895, cert den 435 US 904, 55 L Ed 2d 494, 98 S Ct 1449.

Greek national seaman brought libel in admiralty in personam against Panamanian shipping corporation for injuries sustained on high sea, but 46 USCS Appx § 688 was not applicable even if controlling interest in corporation was held by United States citizens. Argyros v Polar Compania De Navegacion, Ltda. (1956, DC NY) 146 F Supp 624, 1957 AMC 97.

Although majority of stock of Panamanian ship-owning corporation is owned by United States citizens, Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) is inapplicable to Greek seaman's suit for injuries sustained on high seas aboard Liberian registered vessel owned by Panamanian corporation, since American allegiance of shipowners, arrived at by piercing veil of corporate ownership, is nothing more than fortuitous circumstance. Mproumeriotis v Seacrest Shipping Co. (1957, DC NY) 149 F Supp 265.

Allegation in complaint of resident of Greece that beneficial owners of stock of corporation owning ship were American citizens did not make it imperative that federal district Court take jurisdiction over action as 46 USCS Appx § 688 case. Moutzouris v National Shipping & Trading Co. (1961, SD NY) 194 F Supp 468.

Although shipowning corporation is ultimately owned by American citizens, Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) is not applicable to suit by Greek seaman for alleged aggravation of illness occurring on high seas aboard Greek registered and Panamanian owned vessel, since there must be some additional contact between transaction and United States and factor of ultimate stock ownership is insufficient to warrant application of Act. Malanos v Marsuerte Compania Naviera, S. A. (1966, ED Va) 259 F Supp 646.

66. --Particular percentage of stock or number of stockholders

46 USCS Appx § 688 jurisdiction existed with respect to action brought for wrongful death of Honduran seaman as to owner of vessel where all stock of corporation owning vessel was owned by Americans, managing and chartering agents for vessel had their base of operations in United States, and managing and chartering of vessel was conducted in United States. Moncada v Lemuria Shipping Corp. (1974, CA2 NY) 491 F2d 470, cert den 417 US 947, 41 L Ed 2d 667, 94 S Ct 3072 and (disagreed with De Mateos v Texaco, Inc. (CA3 Pa) 562 F2d 895, cert den 435 US 904, 55 L Ed 2d 494, 98 S Ct 1449) and (disagreed with Chiazor v Transworld Drilling Co. (CA5 La) 648 F2d 1015, reh den (CA5 La) 659 F2d 1075 and cert den 455 US 1019, 72 L Ed 2d 136, 102 S Ct 1714) as stated in Vaz Borralho v Keydril Co. (CA5 Tex) 696 F2d 379, reh den (CA5 Tex) 710 F2d 207 and (disagreed with Tallentire v Offshore Logistics, Inc. (CA5 La) 754 F2d 1274, revd on other grounds (US) 91 L Ed 2d 174, 106 S Ct 2485).

Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) is inapplicable to suit by Honduran seaman for injuries sustained in Japanese waters aboard Norwegian vessel, since shareholders of Norwegian shipowning company, although including 8 Americans, also included 12,700 Norwegians. Merren v A/S Borgestad (1975, CA5 La) 519 F2d 82.

Majority stock ownership of and control by Americans of Panamanian corporate owner of vessel represented sufficient contact with United States to give federal district court subject matter jurisdiction in action brought by injured seaman against corporation. Bobolakis v Compania Panamena Maritima San Gerassimo, S. A. (1958, DC NY) 168 F Supp 236, 1959 AMC 697.

Majority stock ownership by citizens and residents of the United States and American citizenship of all directors of corporation owning vessel were not sufficient to sustain jurisdiction in federal district court under 46 USCS Appx § 688 where libellant was alien, vessel flew flag of foreign registry, injuries complained of occurred on high seas, and where greater part of witnesses, and particularly essential medical witnesses, resided outside United States and beyond process of court. Mpampouros v S.S. Auromar (1962, DC Md) 203 F Supp 944, 1962 AMC 849.

Percentage figures by themselves mean little for purposes of determining de facto control of corporation and, where participation by United States citizens reaches level of 48 percent, it may be inferred that it was more than fortuitous that management of business was based in United States; when mode and manner of doing business has all attributes of domestic business operation, businesses or corporations become subject to laws of United States even though more formal manifestations of arrangement appear to be foreign. Pavlou v Ocean Traders Marine Corp. (1962, SD NY) 211 F Supp 320.

Although ship aboard which Greek seaman was injured on high seas was of Panamanian registry and owned by Panamanian corporation, Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) is applicable to suit on ground that beneficial ownership of vessel is vested in United States citizen, since 50 percent of stock of Panamanian corporation is owned by American corporation which acted as ship's general agent in United States, and remaining 50 percent is owned by American citizen. Ventiadis v C. J. Thibodeaux & Co. (1968, SD Tex) 295 F Supp 135.

Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) does not apply to suit by Nigerian seaman for injuries sustained in Nigerian waters aboard Panamanian registered and Nigerian owned ship, despite fact that 60 percent of stock of nominal foreign corporate shipowner is owned by American corporation, since stock ownership alone is not sufficient to maintain jurisdiction under Act. Iriah v J. Ray McDermott & Co. (1979, DC Tex) 1979 AMC 1219.

67. Other American contacts present

Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) applies to Liberian shipowning corporation in suit brought by British West Indian seaman for injuries sustained in American waters aboard vessel owned by Liberian corporation, since facade of foreign registration may be pentrated to reach true American ownership of vessel to prevent frustrating purposes of Act by American shipowners intent upon evading their obligations under law. Bartholomew v Universe Tankships, Inc. (1959, CA2 NY) 263 F2d 437, 1 FR Serv 2d 621, cert den 359 US 1000, 3 L Ed 2d 1030, 79 S Ct 1138 and (disagreed with De Mateos v Texaco, Inc. (CA3 Pa) 562 F2d 895, cert den 435 US 904, 55 L Ed 2d 494, 98 S Ct 1449) and (disagreed with Chiazor v Transworld Drilling Co. (CA5 La) 648 F2d 1015, reh den (CA5 La) 659 F2d 1075 and cert den 455 US 1019, 72 L Ed 2d 136, 102 S Ct 1714) as stated in Vaz Borralho v Keydril Co. (CA5 Tex) 696 F2d 379, reh den (CA5 Tex) 710 F2d 207 and (disagreed with Tallentire v Offshore Logistics, Inc. (CA5 La) 754 F2d 1274, revd on other grounds (US) 91 L Ed 2d 174, 106 S Ct 2485).

Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) applies to foreign seaman's right of action for injuries sustained on high seas aboard Greek flag vessel, on grounds that Panamanian corporation which owned ship was in fact operated by American corporation which solicited business in United States. Antypas v Cia. Maritima San Basilio, S. A. (1976, CA2 NY) 541 F2d 307, cert den 429 US 1098, 51 L Ed 2d 545, 97 S Ct 1116 and (disagreed with De Mateos v Texaco, Inc. (CA3 Pa) 562 F2d 895, cert den 435 US 904, 55 L Ed 2d 494, 98 S Ct 1449) and (disagreed with Chiazor v Transworld Drilling Co. (CA5 La) 648 F2d 1015, reh den (CA5 La) 659 F2d 1075 and cert den 455 US 1019, 72 L Ed 2d 136, 102 S Ct 1714) as stated in Vaz Borralho v Keydril Co. (CA5 Tex) 696 F2d 379, reh den (CA5 Tex) 710 F2d 207 and (disagreed with Tallentire v Offshore Logistics, Inc. (CA5 La) 754 F2d 1274, revd on other grounds (US) 91 L Ed 2d 174, 106 S Ct 2485) and (disagreed with Cruz v Maritime Co. of Philippines (CA2 NY) 702 F2d 47 (disagreed with Pereira v Utah Transport, Inc. (CA9 Cal) 764 F2d 686, cert dismd (US) 89 L Ed 2d 362, 106 S Ct 1253)).

4. Nationality of Seaman

68. Generally

Treating nationality and residence of seamen as potentially decisive element in choice of law determination does not violate equal protection clause of Fourteenth Amendment. Vaz Borralho v Keydrill Co. (1983, CA5 Tex) 696 F2d 379, reh den (CA5 Tex) 710 F2d 207 and (disagreed with Tallentire v Offshore Logistics, Inc. (CA5 La) 754 F2d 1274, revd on other grounds (US) 91 L Ed 2d 174, 106 S Ct 2485).

46 USCS Appx § 688 should not be applied in suit by alien against foreign shipowner where contacts with United States are of incidental importance. Poulos v SS Ionic Coast (1967, ED La) 264 F Supp 237.

69. American seaman

United States law did not apply, and thus seaman failed to state cause of action under Jones Act and general maritime law against owners of Mexican fishing vessel for injuries sustained in accident which occurred on high seas, where only factor in favor of application of United States law was plaintiff's citizenship and all other factors pointed to application of Mexican law. Bilyk v Vessel Nair (1985, CA9 Cal) 754 F2d 1541.

United States law does not apply to Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) action by American citizen arising out of accident that occurred on high seas, where vessel was Mexican and was based in Mexico, vessel owners and shareholders were Mexican citizens and residents, it is not unduly onerous for American citizen to make return trip to Mexico, and written contract was made in Mexico. Bilyk v Vessel Nair (1985, CA9 Cal) 754 F2d 1541.

In action by injured seaman against tuna vessel, corporation that owned vessel, and majority shareholder of corporation under Jones Act, Mexican law, rather than American law, was applicable, although seaman was United States citizen, where tuna vessel operated out of Mexico, could only unload its cargo in Mexico, and could not unload its cargo in United States, its contracts were in Spanish, it had predominantly Mexican crew, and was owned by Mexican corporation; it was foreseeable that if there were an injury to a seaman, it would be governed by the laws of Mexico, which governed and regulated the actions of the corporate defendant, its vessel, and the individual defendant, its subject. Jones v The Vessel Nair (1984, SD Cal) 586 F Supp 507, corrected (SD Cal) 612 F Supp 414.

Summary judgment is granted to owner of Norwegian vessel in action for damages by American seaman arising out of injury on board ship in Hong Kong, where ship flew Norwegian flag, was based in Norway, and seaman's contract contained choice of law provision selecting Norway, because (1) Norwegian law controlled, (2) seaman failed to show inadequate access to Norwegian courts, and (3) American citizenship alone was not sufficient to balance interests in favor of seaman. Lockwood v M/S Royal Viking Star (1986, CD Cal) 663 F Supp 181.

American seaman on foreign vessel was entitled to sue under 46 USCS Appx § 688 for injuries received while working on lighter alongside steamship. Toulon v Grace S. S. Co. (1933) 262 NY 506, 188 NE 40, 1933 AMC 979.

American citizen signing engagement as seaman on German vessel, was not entitled to sue for injuries under 46 USCS Appx § 688, German law affording exclusive remedy. Hogan v Hamburg American Line (1934) 152 Misc 405, 272 NYS 690, 1934 AMC 797, cert den 295 US 749, 79 L Ed 1693, 55 S Ct 827.

70. --Other American contacts present

American seaman injured on American vessel in course of his employment and due to negligence of his employer may maintain action under 46 USCS Appx § 688 in courts of United States--federal or state--although injury takes place in foreign port and in territorial waters of another nation. Panama R. Co. v Johnson (1924) 264 US 375, 68 L Ed 748, 44 S Ct 391; Alpha S.S. Corp. v Cain (1930) 281 US 642, 74 L Ed 1086, 50 S Ct 443.

Personal representative of American stevedore killed in course of employment on board British vessel moored in New Jersey may bring action for wrongful death under Jones Act (46 USCS Appx§ 688) since there is no contractual relation between deceased and ship's foreign owners or personnel. Mahoney v International Elevating Co. (1927, DC NY) 23 F2d 130, affd (CA2 NY) 26 F2d 1019.

American seaman working on ship flying foreign flag and owned by alien corporation, injured while ship tied up in New York harbor, was entitled to invoke 46 USCS Appx § 688. Shorter v Bermuda & West Indies S.S. Co. (1932, DC NY) 57 F2d 313.

Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) applies to suit by American seaman for injuries sustained in Venezuela aboard American ship on grounds that, when seaman departed boundaries of Venezuela, interest of Venezuela ended and interest of United States and powers of Congress and courts to control activities of American citizens continued. Farmer v Standard Dredging Corp. (1958, DC Del) 167 F Supp 381.

71. Foreign seaman; all contacts foreign

District Court correctly concluded that American law does not apply to dispute arising out of personal injury to Greek seaman aboard Liberian flag vessel owned by Panamanian corporation which is in turn wholly owned subsidiary of Liberian corporation. Tamboris v Kainis Compania Maritima, S.A. (1971, CA5 Ala) 439 F2d 1131.

Foreign law, and not Jones Act, was applicable to claim of wife and children of Philippine seaman who drowned off Saudi Arabia where (a) injury did not occur in navigable waters off either Philippines or United States; (b) vessel flew flag of Panama; (c) decedent was both citizen and domiciliary of the Philippines; (d) application of United States law was not required where only contact with United States was American ownership or control of business venture; (e) decedent's employment contract provided for application of Philippine law; (f) American shipowners waived jurisdictional, venue, and statute of limitation defenses in event wife and children asserted claim in Philippines; (g) vessel's base of operations was limited to coastal waters off Saudi Arabia, and (h) vessel was not earning income from cargo originating or terminating in United States. Villar v Crowley Maritime Corp. (1986, CA9 Cal) 782 F2d 1478.

46 USCS Appx § 688 does not apply to suits between foreign seaman and foreign vessel. The Astra (1940, DC Md) 34 F Supp 152, 1940 AMC 1188.

Libel by Greek citizen, who at time of occurrence sued upon was seaman employed on vessel flying Greek flag and claimed to be owned and operated by aliens, for injuries received when he was assaulted, stabbed, and seriously wounded by another seaman on same ship, would not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction in view of special circumstances existing, war conditions, and probability that in no other place could libellant obtain relief. Kyriakos v Polemis (1943, DC NY) 53 F Supp 715, 1943 AMC 1391.

Cuban citizen, employed as fireman on vessel, who was injured while vessel was on high seas on voyage between England and Belgium, could not recover under 46 USCS Appx § 688. Puig v Royal Norwegian Government (1947, DC NY) 72 F Supp 69.

Federal District Court did not have jurisdiction of action brought under 46 USCS Appx § 688, where seaman was Greek, signed for service aboard Greek ship and was injured in Japanese port. Tsitsinakis v Simpson, Spence & Young (1950, DC NY) 90 F Supp 578.

Estonian seaman could not recover under 46 USCS Appx § 688 for injuries sustained aboard Swedish ship outside territorial waters of United States. Berendson v Rederiaktiebolaget Volo (1956, DC NY) 149 F Supp 140, 1957 AMC 95, affd (CA2 NY) 257 F2d 136, 1958 AMC 1836, cert den 358 US 895, 3 L Ed 2d 121, 79 S Ct 156.

Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) case is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, where cruise ship seaman is Turkish national who resides in United Kingdom and was injured in Argentina aboard Liberian-flagged vessel whose operational range was South America, and only contacts between vessel owner and U.S. are facts that office is located in and some officers live in Florida, because U.S. contacts are not substantial enough to create federal jurisdiction. Baydar v Renaissance Cruises, Inc. (1999, SD Fla) 35 F Supp 2d 916, 1999 AMC 1813.

72. --American business contacts

Alien owner, engaged in extensive business operation in United States, should not have advantage over citizens engaged in same business by allowing him to escape obligations and responsibility as "employer" under 46 USCS Appx § 688; flag, nationality of seaman, fact that seaman's employment contract was Greek and that he might be compensated there for injury are minor weights in scale compared with substantial and continuing contacts that alien owner has with 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.

Alien sailor who signs for crew of alien ship in American port can sue under 46 USCS Appx § 688 for aggravation of illness of tuberculosis because of insufficient care aboard ship. Taylor v Atlantic Maritime Co. (1950, CA2 NY) 179 F2d 597, 1950 AMC 352, vacated on other grounds (CA2 NY) 181 F2d 84 1950 AMC 737, and cert den 341 US 915, 95 L Ed 1350, 71 S Ct 736.

46 USCS Appx § 688 did not apply to action by Greek seaman, injured aboard Panamanian ship owned by Liberian corporation in international waters notwithstanding that corporation maintained checking account in New York bank, where none of stock was owned by any citizen of United States and corporation did not maintain place of business in United States. Dassigienis v Cosmos Carriers & Trading Corp. (1971, CA2 NY) 442 F2d 1016.

Jones Act did not govern dispute between Spanish seaman and Liberian corporations that owned Liberian flagship, arising out of injuries seaman received from Japanese-manufactured device while ship was off coast of Thailand, where employment contract, which was executed in Spain, provided that all disputes would be subject to law of flag and vessel only rarely called on American port, notwithstanding fact that Liberian owners' main office and base of operations was located in United States. Pereira v Utah Transport, Inc. (1985, CA9 Cal) 764 F2d 686, cert dismd (US) 89 L Ed 2d 362, 106 S Ct 1253.

Jones Act and general American maritime law did not apply to action by Honduran seaman against shipowner, operating agent, and husbanding agent, to recover for injuries sustained when he slipped and fell while unloading cargo in Egypt, where only contacts with United States were that seaman joined vessel in Philadelphia and that husbanding agent was New York corporation, and where, although seaman alleged that all defendants were owned or controlled by Americans and had primary base of operations in New York, he offered no proof to support this claim. Flores v Central American S.S. Agency, Inc. (1984, SD NY) 594 F Supp 735.

Greek seaman who injured hand while working aboard Greek flagship while docked in American port could bring action against shipowners under Jones Act, notwithstanding facts that shipowners were also Greek, that articles of employment were Greek and called for resolution of all disputes arising out of employment in Greek courts, and that seamen had access to Greek forum, where evidence showed that New York was base of operations of shipowner for particular vessel involved, including evidence that vessel was engaged in regular transatlantic trade between Mediterranean ports and Atlantic seaboard, that vessel earned substantial income from cargo originating in or bound for United States, and that Greek owners were shareholders in American corporation owned in part by their New York agent. Karvelis v Constellation Lines SA (1985, SD NY) 608 F Supp 966.

In wrongful death action by survivors of Scottish seaman who died of injuries sustained while working on diving support vessel in North Sea, trial court did not err in holding that American law did not apply, despite plaintiffs' claim that there were substantial contacts between decedent's employer and United States; even assuming ultimate United States ownership or control, based on fact that foreign subsidiary of United States corporation had leased vessel and was operating it under contract at time of accident, this contact was insufficient to require application of American law, and there was no evidence to support plaintiff's contentions that decedent either was borrowed servant of foreign subsidiary or that foreign subsidiary and United States corporation operated as alter egos. Couch v Chevron International Oil Co. (1984, Tex App Houston (14th Dist)) 672 SW2d 16, writ ref n r e, later proceeding (Tex) 682 SW2d 534.

73. --Injury in American port or waters

Law of United States is applicable in case of injury to foreign subject aboard foreign vessel in American port. Heredia v Davies (1926, CA4 Va) 12 F2d 500, 1926 AMC 703.

Maryland federal District Court had constitutional jurisdiction over action under 46 USCS Appx § 688 brought by Greek national injured in Maryland port against tramp steamer with no scheduled route owned by Panamanian corporation and registered under Greek flag, which vessel had been in Maryland ports on six occasions during nine-year period. Gkiafis v S.S. Yiosonas, (1965, CA4 Md) 342 F2d 546, 1965 AMC 1411, on remand (DC Md) 254 F Supp 825, affd in part and revd in part on other grounds (CA4 Md) 387 F2d 460.

Happenstance that accident occurred while ship was in American waters--only contact controversy has with United States--is insufficient to invoke 46 USCS Appx § 688 where owner of ship is Greek citizen and resident with principal place of business in Athens and none of crew members including plaintiff is American citizen. Koupetoris v Konkar Intrepid Corp. (1976 CA2 NY) 535 F2d 1392.

Syrian seaman, who was injured when working aboard Greek vessel operated by Liberian corporation while in port in United States, was entitled to maintain action against owners under Jones Act where vessel had substantial and continuing contacts with United States and virtually none with Liberia, thus establishing United States as base of operations, where vessel's owners were apparently United States nationals, and where injury had occurred within United States. Dalla v Atlas Maritime Co. (1985, CA9 Cal) 771 F2d 1277.

Norwegian citizen injured while performing duty as seaman on Norwegian vessel proceeding up Delaware river was not entitled to recover under 46 USCS Appx § 688. The Seirstad (1928, DC NY) 27 F2d 982, 1928 AMC 1241.

Citizen of Norway, who shipped on Norwegian ship in Antwerp, Belgium, for voyage ending in foreign port, could not maintain 46 USCS Appx § 688 action to recover damages as result of fall from ship to pier in American port. Lunde v Skibs A. S. Herstein (1952, DC NY) 103 F Supp 446.

In 46 USCS Appx § 688 action involving an injury sustained in American port by foreign seaman aboard foreign vessel in course of voyage beginning and ending in foreign country, appropriate course is for federal district court to deny 46 USCS Appx § 688 claim on merits, but this denial of § 688 claim on merits leaves court free to consider whether, with due regard to doctrine of forum non conveniens, it should take jurisdiction and apply relevant foreign law. Volkenburg v Nederland-Amerik. Stoomv. Maats (1963, DC Mass) 221 F Supp 925, 1964 AMC 53, affd (CA1 Mass) 336 F2d 480, 1964 AMC 1958, 8 FR Serv 2d 34.13, Case 12.

46 USCS Appx § 688 is inapplicable to suit by crewmembers of tank vessel which suffered explosions and fire while tied up at Pennsylvania refinery where vessel was Greek vessel, none of crew members or officers were American citizens, all crew members signed employment contracts in Greece which provided for exclusive jurisdiction of Greek courts, and there was no ownership or interest in vessel by U.S. citizen or resident; place of wrongful act is of minor importance in determining law governing suit by foreign seaman against foreign shipowner. Re Lidoriki Maritime Corp. (1975, DC Pa) 404 F Supp 1402.

Neither Jones Act nor general maritime law of United States applied to claims asserted by Pakistani seaman against Greek shipowner for injuries sustained while on board defendant's ship, where contacts with United States were minimal, injured plaintiff was citizen of Pakistan, shipowner was Liberian corporation, more than 80 percent of shares of which were owned by Greek nationals who did not reside in United States, contract of employment was signed in Spain and designated Greek law to be applied for resolution of disputes, alternate forum was accessible in Greece, and ship owner did not have base of operations in United States, and where only factors which favored application of United States law were relatively insignificant ones that injury occurred in United States and United States district court would be applying federal choice of law rules. Ullah v Canion Shipping Co. (1984, DC Md) 589 F Supp 552, affd (CA4 Md) 755 F2d 1116.

Captain's claims arising from his serious fall in hold of vessel should be dismissed for forum non conveniens, as Greece or Cyprus provides better forum for this lawsuit, where (1) he is Greek citizen, (2) vessel flies flag of Cyprus, (3) owners are Cypriot and managers are Greek, (4) employment contract was entered into in Greece, (5) Greece and Cyprus are not inconvenient forums, and (6) U.S. is not base of operations for either vessel or owner, even though (7) U.S. forum has jurisdiction, and (8) accident took place here, because 6 of 8 factors weigh against application of Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688). Ioannidis v M/V Sea Concert (2000, DC Or) 132 F Supp 2d 847, adopted, dismd (2001, DC Or) 132 F Supp 2d 847.

74. --Voyage to or from American port

Foreign national hired for trip on British ship, which started in British port and ended in British port, could not sue under 46 USCS Appx § 688 for damages, even though ship spent large part of its time in United States port. Catherall v Cunard S. S. Co. (1951, DC NY) 101 F Supp 230.

Plaintiff could not file complaint for damages under 46 USCS Appx § 688 where record reflected that: Plaintiff was citizen and domiciliary of Spain; contract of employment was signed in Spain and was written in Spanish and Norwegian; contract provided that plaintiff's rights and obligations were those under Norwegian law; plaintiff was receiving benefits in accord therewith; defendant was Norwegian corporation and ship, upon which plaintiff was employed, was of Norwegian flag and registry; accident occurred on High Seas off coast of Bahamas; and plaintiff's only contact with United States was upon ship's arrival in port to pick up passengers and supplies. Valverde v Klosters Rederi A/S (1974, Fla App D3) 294 So 2d 101.

75. --Resident of United States

In 46 USCS Appx § 688 action, alien seaman who had been domiciled in United States for over 20 years, during greater part of which time he had served on American ships, and who was injured on voyage begun and ended in United States, nearly all of which was in territorial waters of United States, filed libel in rem against vessel of foreign registry to recover for such injuries which was properly dismissed; however, since libel in personam against owner of vessel stated good claim it should have been tried on its merits. Gambera v Bergoty (1942, CA2 NY) 132 F2d 414, 1943 AMC 45, cert den 319 US 742, 87 L Ed 1699, 63 S Ct 1030.

Where alien seaman on coming to this country in 1924, declared his intention of becoming citizen in 1925, and although residing here for 20 years had never been naturalized, his widow, as his administratrix could not sue alien corporation under 46 USCS Appx § 688 to recover damages resulting from his death from injuries occurring on high seas between foreign ports in one of which he signed articles. O'Neill v Cunard White Star, Ltd. (1947, CA2 NY) 160 F2d 446, 1947 AMC 505, cert den 332 US 773, 92 L Ed 358, 68 S Ct 56.

Fact that seaman lived in New York between voyages, is insufficient national interest to warrant application of Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688), and therefore seaman has no cause of action under Act when he fell through hatch of Swedish vessel during voyage which began and terminated in United States. Berendson v Rederiaktiebolaget Volo (1958, CA2 NY) 257 F2d 136, cert den 358 US 895, 3 L Ed 2d 121, 79 S Ct 156.

Fact that vessel was registered in Greece and flew Greek flag and was owned by Greeks did not relieve owner from liability in action under 46 USCS Appx § 688 for personal injuries suffered by seaman, Italian citizen, who had been domiciled in United States for over 20 years, during greater part of which time he had served on American ships, and where voyage on which he was injured began and ended in United States. The Emmy (1944, DC NY) 55 F Supp 60, 1944 AMC 276.

46 USCS Appx § 688 did not apply to British citizen, resident of United States, who signed shipping articles to serve aboard vessel flying British flag and owned by British corporation, for tort committed on high seas or in British territorial waters. Smith v Furness, Withy & Co. (1953, DC NY) 119 F Supp 369.

There was 46 USCS Appx § 688 jurisdiction over seaman's cause of action where seaman was born in Germany but claimed domicil in United States, at time of his injury seaman was assigned to boat which was operating in North Sea off shore of Scotland, and where vessel was owned by Canadian corporation, 95 percent of whose stock was owned by American corporation and contract was made in United States. Rode v Sedco, Inc. (1975, ED Tex) 394 F Supp 206.

76. --Temporary presence in United States

Statutes of United States should not be applied to claim of maritime tort, where Danish seaman while temporarily in New York, joined ship of Danish flag, owned by Danish citizen, and contract of employment provided that rights of crew members should be governed by Danish law, and seaman was negligently injured in foreign waters. Lauritzen v Larsen (1953) 345 US 571, 97 L Ed 1254, 73 S Ct 921, 1953 AMC 1210.

77. --Presence or residence in United States after injury

District Court had no discretionary power to refuse to adjudicate case brought under 46 USCS Appx § 688 by alien seaman, assaulted within territorial waters of United States, aboard ship flying Liberian flag, owned by Liberian corporation which was wholly owned by Panamanian corporation, all stock in which was owned by United States citizens, on voyage from Baltimore to Philadelphia, articles for which were signed in Baltimore, which seaman had signed declaration of intention to become United States citizen few months after assault. Bartholomew v Universe Tankships, Inc. (1959, CA2 NY) 263 F2d 437, 1959 AMC 273, 1 FR Serv 2d 621, cert den 359 US 1000, 3 L Ed 2d 1030, 79 S Ct 1138 and (disagreed with De Mateos v Texaco, Inc. (CA3 Pa) 562 F2d 895, cert den 435 US 904, 55 L Ed 2d 494, 98 S Ct 1449) and (disagreed with Chiazor v Transworld Drilling Co. (CA5 La) 648 F2d 1015, reh den (CA5 La) 659 F2d 1075 and cert den 455 US 1019, 72 L Ed 2d 136, 102 S Ct 1714) as stated in Vaz Borralho v Keydril Co. (CA5 Tex) 696 F2d 379, reh den (CA5 Tex) 710 F2d 207 and (disagreed with Tallentire v Offshore Logistics, Inc. (CA5 La) 754 F2d 1274, revd on other grounds (US) 91 L Ed 2d 174, 106 S Ct 2485).

Domicile at time of action controls for purposes of determining applicability of Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688), and thus fact that Honduran seaman established residence in United States subsequent to being injured in Liberia aboard Norwegian ship is insufficient to invoke application of Jones Act. Nunez-Lozano v Rederi (1980, CA5 La) 634 F2d 135.

46 USCS Appx § 688 was inapplicable and federal district court declined jurisdiction of action brought by Greek citizen injured on foreign ship outside territorial waters of the United States, when only connection between United States and action was that when plaintiff arrived in United States he had been treated for three days in hospital and then left ship to bring action. Moutzouris v National Shipping & Trading Co. (1961, SD NY) 196 F Supp 482, 1961 AMC 983. affd 1961 AMC 1610, adhered to (DC NY) 194 F Supp 468.

Where Greek seaman injured on Panamanian vessel flying Liberian flag had signed employment contract providing that terms and conditions of work were to be governed by Greek law, and only contacts with United States were seaman's brief stay in Alaskan hospital, New York domicile of vessel's former agent and New York residence of president of vessel's current New York area agent, federal court did not have jurisdiction to hear seaman's claims under 46 USCS Appx § 688 and general maritime law. Mihalinos v Liberian S.S. Trikala (1972, SD Cal) 342 F Supp 1237.

78. --American spouse

Where only connection between United States of America and Greek plaintiff who was seeking damages under 46 USCS Appx § 688 for injury suffered in Dutch port on board British ship owned by Liberian corporation was that plaintiff was married to American citizen, court would decline jurisdiction. Camarias v M/V Lady Era (1969, DC Va) 318 F Supp 379, affd (CA4 Va) 432 F2d 1234.

79. --On American vessel

In action by widows of citizens of Trinidad who were killed while working aboard mobile oil drilling vessel in national waters of Trinidad, district court, having determined that United States law did not apply, was not required on remand to reconsider its choice of law analysis as to Jones Act and maritime death statute claims against owners and operators of vessel, notwithstanding beneficial ownership of vessel was in United States. That shipowner was American did not tilt balance in favor of application of United States law where plaintiffs were foreign citizens, place of wrong was territorial waters of another country, and context was that of offshore oil drilling. Ali v Offshore Co. (1985, CA5 La) 753 F2d 1327.

Greek law, not 46 USCS Appx § 688, was applicable to injuries sutained by Greek nationals due to accident occurring aboard ship moored to Greek dock where, although nationality of ship and its owner was American, every other contact was with Greece; plaintiffs were not employed by owner of American ship, but by Greek port authority; there had been no allegation that Greece was inaccessible forum. Lemonis v Prudential-Grace Lines, Inc. (1975) 81 Misc 2d 614, 366 NYS2d 541.

80. --Multiple American contacts

It is possible for alien seaman who signs aboard foreign vessel in American port for voyage beginning and ending in American waters to sue under Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) in action by Greek seaman for stab wounds sustained while Greek ship, during voyage from United States to England and back again, was in Florida port, since Jones Act is not restricted to American seaman but gives right of action to "any seaman." Kyriakos v Goulandris (1945, CA2 NY) 151 F2d 132.

46 USCS Appx § 688 applies so as to allow recovery to Greek seaman who was injured in United States port on a Greek-flag vessel owned and controlled by Greek citizens who are United States domiciliaries. Hellenic Lines Ltd. v Rhoditis (1969, CA5 Ala) 412 F2d 919, affd 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.

Jurisdiction under Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) was properly denied to widow seeking to recover from employer of husband who died on employer's ship, where, although employer had American contracts and husband died while ship was berthed at American port, parties were Greek, ship was of Greek registry, and Greek law governed contracts. Dracos v Hellenic Lines, Ltd. (1983, CA4 Va) 705 F2d 1392 on reh, en banc (CA4 Va) 762 F2d 348, cert den (US) 88 L Ed 2d 288, 106 S Ct 311.

81. Collective nationalities of crew

Action under 46 USCS Appx § 688 for injuries sustained on ship flying Honduras flag could be maintained where it appeared that only contacts ship had with Honduras were flag and articles, ship was owned by Liberian corporation, all stock of which was owned by Greek and American citizens, orders directing movements of vessel came partly from American and partly from Greek owners, members of crew were residents of Greece, except for two residents of United States, injury occurred in American port, and vessel had never, in any of its voyages, visited Hondurian port. Southern Cross S.S. Co. v Firipis (1960, CA4 Va) 285 F2d 651, 84 ALR2d 895, 1961 AMC 621, cert den 365 US 869, 5 L Ed 2d 859, 81 S Ct 903 and (disagreed with Swain v Isthmian Lines, Inc. (CA3 Pa) 360 F2d 81 (disagreed with Chung, Yong Il v Overseas Navigation Co. (CA11 Ala) 774 F2d 1043, reh den, en banc (CA11 Ala) 779 F2d 60 and reh den, en banc (CA11 Ala) 779 F2d 60 and cert den (US) 90 L Ed 2d 346, 106 S Ct 1802)) and (disapproved on other grounds Griffin v Oceanic Contractors, Inc., 458 US 564, 73 L Ed 2d 973, 102 S Ct 3245, on remand (CA5 Tex) 685 F2d 139).

Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) is applicable where nationalities of crew members indicate that foreign ownership and registration of vessel are facades for American control. Groves v Universe Tankships, Inc. (1970, SD NY) 308 F Supp 826; Mattes v National Hellenic American Line, S. A. (1977, SD NY) 427 F Supp 619.

46 USCS Appx § 688 is inapplicable to suit by crewmembers of tank vessel which suffered explosions and fire while tied up at Pennsylvania refinery where vessel was Greek vessel, none of crew members or officers were American citizens, all crew members signed employment contracts in Greece which provided for exclusive jurisdiction of Greek courts, and there was no ownership or interest in vessel by U.S. citizen or resident; place of wrongful act is of minor importance in determining law governing suit by foreign seaman against foreign shipowner. Re Lidoriki Maritime Corp. (1975, ED Pa) 404 F Supp 1402.

Neither 46 USCS Appx § 688 nor general maritime law of United States should be applied in controversy in which vessel is foreign flag vessel, owners of vessel are foreign, no defendants are substantially involved with United States, plaintiff is in foreign country, crewmembers are almost totally foreign nationals, trial in United States would require interpreter for those witnesses from foreign country or elsewhere and expense of bringing witnesses and plaintiff from foreign countries is greater than if few witnesses and records here, if indeed necessary, when transported from United States. Dorizos v Lemos & Pateras, Ltd. (1977, SD Ala) 437 F Supp 120.

5. Other Factors

82. Locus of employment contract and articles

Place of contracting is largely fortuitous and of little importance in determining applicable law in action of maritime tort. Romero v International Terminal Operating Co. (1959) 358 US 354, 3 L Ed 2d 368, 79 S Ct 468, reh den 359 US 962, 3 L Ed 2d 769, 79 S Ct 795.

Factors of ship's flag and seaman's nationality, fact that employment contract had been entered into in Greece and provided for adjudication in Greek court of all claims arising from contract, and fact that seaman might obtain relief in Greece constitute minor weights in scales compared with substantial and continuing contacts that resident alien owner has with 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 determining applicability of 46 USCS Appx § 688, place where seaman signs on is of relatively little weight. Berendson v Rederiaktiebolaget Volo (1958, CA2 NY) 257 F2d 136, cert den 358 US 895, 3 L Ed 2d 121, 79 S Ct 156.

Place of contract does not have substantial influence on choice of law question where place of contract is unclear as where negotiations for first employment contract occur in United States, but later successor contracts are signed in Panama and Mexico. Jones v The Vessel Nair (1984, SD Cal) 586 F Supp 507, corrected (SD Cal) 612 F Supp 414.

83. --In United States

Alien seaman in service of foreign flag vessel owned by foreign interests, injured at foreign port or on high seas cannot receive benefits of 46 USCS Appx § 688 in American court although articles were signed in United States. Lauritzen v Larsen (1953) 345 US 571, 97 L Ed 1254, 73 S Ct 921.

Alien seaman who signed on in American port for voyage beginning and ending in American waters on foreign vessel can sue under 46 USCS Appx § 688. Kyriakos v Goulandris (1945, CA2 NY) 151 F2d 132.

46 USCS Appx § 688 does not provide cause of action for death of Honduran seaman killed in action off the coast of Japan on Norwegian flag ship, even if contract of employment was signed in port of New Orleans. Merren v A/S Borgestad (1975, CA5 La) 519 F2d 82.

In choosing between application of 46 USCS Appx § 688 and foreign law, factors of alleged wrongful acts taking place on high seas, ship in question flying flag of Panama, plaintiff being citizen of Panama, defendant being corporation organized under laws of Panama and plaintiff having available Panamanian law under which to sue, outweigh incident that seaman signed articles in United States. Rankin v Atlantic Maritime Co. (1853, DC NY) 117 F Supp 253.

46 USCS Appx § 688 applies to foreign seaman signing on foreign ship in American port. Neset v Christensen (1950, DC NY) 92 F Supp 78, 1950 AMC 1832; Tselentis v Michalinos Maritime & Commercial Co. (1952, DC NY) 104 F Supp 942.

Where plaintiff, British national who seeks redress against British corporation for alleged tort on British vessel, currently sails on vessel which calls regularly at British port, court will not exercise its admiralty jurisdiction to apply 46 USCS Appx § 688, even though plaintiff signed British shipping articles in New York. Smith v Furness, Withy & Co. (1953, DC NY) 119 F Supp 369.

Signing of articles in American port does not bring American law into case under 46 USCS Appx § 688. Mproumeriotis v Seacrest Shipping Co. (1957, DC NY) 149 F Supp 265.

Fact that ship's articles were signed in New York was not sufficient to give district court jurisdiction of suit by alien seaman against foreign ship line. Scognamiglio v Home Lines, Inc. (1965, SD NY) 246 F Supp 605, 1966 AMC 223.

46 USCS Appx § 688 does not apply to Cuban national filing suit in Florida for injuries sustained in foreign waters while in employ of foreign corporation on board vessel flying foreign flag where only factor apparent upon which application of 46 USCS Appx § 688 could be had was signing of contract or employment in Florida. Corella v McCormick Shipping Corp. (1958, Fla App D3) 101 So 2d 903.

American seaman sustaining injuries on board German vessel on high seas must look to German law for relief rather than 46 USCS Appx § 688, since German laws afford remedy which is exclusive, even though articles of shipping were signed in New York City. Hogan v Hamburg American Line (1934) 152 Misc 405, 272 NYS 690, cert den 295 US 749, 79 L Ed 1693, 55 S Ct 827.

84. --Foreign locus

Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) is inapplicable to suit by Greek seaman for injuries sustained aboard Greek vessel in Port of New Orleans where he signed his employment contract in Greece and signed his articles of service in Germany. Yohanes v Ayers S.S. Co. (1971, CA5 La) 451 F2d 349, cert den 406 US 919, 32 L Ed 2d 118, 92 S Ct 1771.

46 USCS Appx § 688 is inapplicable to suit by crewmembers of tank vessel which suffered explosions and fire while tied up at Pennsylvania refinery where vessel was Greek vessel, none of crew members or officers were American citizens, all crew members signed employment contracts in Greece which provided for exclusive jurisdiction of Greek courts, and there was no ownership or interest in vessel by U.S. citizen or resident; place of wrongful act is of minor importance in determining law governing suit by foreign seaman against foreign shipowner. Re Lidoriki Maritime Corp. (1975, ED Pa) 404 F Supp 1402.

85. --Articles and contract signed in different locations

Although Greek seaman signed articles of service in Virginia, Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) is inapplicable to suit by his administrator for his death on high seas aboard Liberian registered and Greek owned ship, since seaman also signed employment contract in Greece, and only significant American contact was fact that one of places of contract was United States. Fitzgerald v Liberian S/T Chryssi P. Goulandris (1978, CA4 Va) 582 F2d 312.

86. Contractual choice of foreign law

Danish seaman, joining ship of Danish registry and flag while in New York, and who was injured in Cuba, cannot sue under 46 USCS Appx § 688, especially where contract of employment was explicit that Danish law was to apply to such contract, since except as forbidden by some public policy, tendency of law is to apply in contract matters law which parties intended to apply. Lauritzen v Larsen (1953) 345 US 571, 97 L Ed 1254, 73 S Ct 921.

Provision in employment contract seeking to preclude Spanish citizen from suing for injuries in United States, where defendant will be Panamanian corporation owning vessel of Panamanian registry, is held invalid. Greenberg v Panama Transp. Co. (1960, DC Mass) 185 F Supp 320, vacated on other grounds (CA1 Mass) 290 F2d 125, cert den 368 US 891, 7 L Ed 2d 88, 82 S Ct 143.

Shipowner and its managing agent can not avoid their duties under law of United States by contracting for application of Greek law, at least with respect to any right Greek seaman had under 46 USCS Appx § 688. Pavlou v Ocean Traders Marine Corp. (1962, SD NY) 211 F Supp 320, 1962 AMC 2133.

Employment contract signed by Greek seaman agreeing to look solely to Greek law and Greek courts is fully valid and American contacts must be substantial before court will declare such agreement void as against public policy. Brillis v Chandris (U.S.A) Inc. (1963, SD NY) 215 F Supp 520.

Shipping articles, written in English and Greek languages, which provide for applicability of Greek law, constitute factor to be considered in determining choice of law. Kontos v S.S. Sophie C. (1964, ED Pa) 236 F Supp 664 (disagreed with Swain v Isthmian Lines, Inc. (CA3 Pa) 360 F2d 81 (disagreed with Chung, Yong Il v Overseas Navigation Co. (CA11 Ala) 774 F2d 1043, reh den, en banc (CA11 Ala) 779 F2d 60 and reh den, en banc (CA11 Ala) 779 F2d 60 and cert den (US) 90 L Ed 2d 346, 106 S Ct 1802)).

Where Egyptian seaman seeks to sue under 46 USCS Appx § 688 for injuries suffered in New York and Venezuela on board Norwegian vessel, fact that employment articles called for application of Norwegian law, although not decisive and not working waiver of any rights belonging to libelant, is at least some confirming evidence of applicable law in case. Shahid v A/S J. Ludwig Mowinckels Rederi (1964, SD NY) 236 F Supp 751.

Stipulation by parties that law of flag, Liberia, controlled in libel action, excluded all rights and remedies granted under 46 USCS Appx § 688. Koleris v S.S. Good Hope (1965, ED Va) 241 F Supp 967 (disapproved on other grounds Waldron v Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc. 386 US 724, 18 L Ed 2d 482, 87 S Ct 1410).

Fact that articles of service provide for rights of British West Indian seaman to be governed by laws of Liberia is viewed as merely one of mechanics of overall scheme by shipowner to evade consequences of Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688). Groves v Universe Tankships, Inc. (1970, SD NY) 308 F Supp 826.

Contractual choice of law clause which adopts law of flag state as governing law between parties to contract may be properly invoked in instances of personal injury claims except when to do so would act to avoid application of other, more naturally applicable law; choice of law clause in contract will not be found controlling if to do so would serve to oust otherwise applicable law in favor of flag-state law in instance where flag is merely one of convenience. Pandazopoulos v Universal Cruise Line, Inc. (1973, SD NY) 365 F Supp 208.

Fact that decedent, Greek seaman, joined crew of vessel in Greece and agreed that any claim arising out of his employment would be settled according to Greek law, deserves weight in deciding whether 46 USCS Appx § 688 or foreign law applies. Xerakis v Greek Line, Inc. (1974, ED Pa) 382 F Supp 774.

Filipino seaman's Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) claim is dismissed, even though court has profound reservations about wisdom of enforcing forum-selection clauses in maritime employment contracts, because seaman was working under contract referencing valid clause directing disputes to Phillipines forum and, at any rate, seaman has apparently settled all his claims. Sabocuhan v Geco-Prakla (1999, SD Tex) 78 F Supp 2d 603.

87. --All contacts foreign

Foreign law, and not Jones Act, was applicable to claim of wife and children of Philippine seaman who drowned off Saudi Arabia where (a) injury did not occur in navigable waters off either Philippines or United States; (b) vessel flew flag of Panama; (c) decedent was both citizen and domiciliary of the Philippines; (d) application of United States law not required where only contact with United States was American ownership or control of business venture; (e) decedent's employment contract provided for application of Philippine law; (f) American shipowners waived jurisdictional, venue, and statute of limitation defenses in event wife and children asserted claim in Philippines; (g) vessel's base of operations was limited to coastal waters off Saudi Arabia, and (h) vessel was not earning income from cargo originating or terminating in United States. Villar v Crowley Maritime Corp. (1986, CA9 Cal) 782 F2d 1478.

46 USCS Appx § 688 and general maritime law of United States do not apply to action by Greek seaman who has signed employment agreement in Greece providing that his rights shall be governed by Greek law and enforceable only in Greek courts. Karakatsanis v Conquestador Cia. Nav., S. A. (1965, SD NY) 247 F Supp 423; Damaskinos v Societa Navigacion Interamericana S. A., Panama (1966, SD NY) 255 F Supp 919.

88. --American ownership

Court would not apply Venezuelan law to deprive United States citizen of relief under 46 USCS Appx § 688 against United States corporation shipowner even though injury occurred in Venezuelan waters and parties were engaged in a local enterprise (dredging harbor at Maracaibo Bay) and employment contract provided that employee would receive certain benefits of Venezuelan law. Farmer v Standard Dredging Corp. (1958, DC Del) 167 F Supp 381.

46 USCS Appx § 688 was applicable where Greek national signed employment contract in Greece and shipping articles in England (both contract and articles providing that his rights were to be determined by Greek law and courts), for service on Liberian flag ship owned by Panamanian corporation, all of whose stock was owned by United States citizen, and seaman was injured while on ship in United States port. Voyiatzis v National Shipping & Trading Corp. (1961, SD NY) 199 F Supp 920, 1962 AMC 2043.

89. --Voyage to or from United States

90. --American business contacts

Jurisdiction under Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) was properly denied to widow seeking to recover from employer of husband who died on employer's ship, where, although employer had American contracts and husband died while ship was berthed at American port, parties were Greek, ship was of Greek registry, and Greek law governed contracts. Dracos v Hellenic Lines, Ltd. (1983, CA4 Va) 705 F2d 1392, on reh, en banc (CA4 Va) 762 F2d 348, cert den (US) 88 L Ed 2d 288, 106 S Ct 311.

District Court's determination that suit by Spanish national who was injured aboard ship flying Liberian flag is governed by Liberian Law and not by Jones Act is proper, notwithstanding that base of operations of Liberian corporations which owned vessel is San Francisco, since (1) vessel flew Liberian flag, (2) law of flag is of cardinal importance, (3) contract provided that law of flag would apply, (4) vessel, which was off coast of Thailand at time plaintiff was injured, rarely called on American port, and (5) District Court reasonably concluded that Spanish forum was readily accessible to plaintiff. Pereira v Utah Transport, Inc. (1985, CA9 Cal) 764 F2d 686, cert dismd (US) 89 L Ed 2d 362, 106 S Ct 1253.

91. --Other American contacts

Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) is inapplicable to Greek seaman's suit for injuries sustained in port of Mobile, Alabama, aboard Greek registered and Panamanian owned ship on grounds that articles of service signed by seaman in Greece provide for resort to Greek forum for resolution of disputes regarding rights and liabilities of parties arising from employment relationship. Dorizos v Lemos & Pateras, Ltd. (1977, SD Ala) 437 F Supp 120.

92. Origin and destination of voyage

Regular or frequent visits to American ports are by themselves insufficient basis to warrant application of Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688). Lauritzen v Larsen (1953) 345 US 571, 97 L Ed 1254, 73 S Ct 921; Puig v Royal Norwegian Government (1947, DC NY) 72 F Supp 69; Hazell v Booth S.S. Co. (1977, SD NY) 444 F Supp 85.

Absence of American port calls is factor supporting conclusion that Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) is inapplicable where vessel aboard which seaman is injured visits no American ports. Frangiskatos v Konkar Maritime Enterprises, S. A. (1972, CA2 NY) 471 F2d 714; Hoidas v Orion & Global Chartering Co. (1977, SD NY) 440 F Supp 53; De Mateos v Texaco, Inc. (1977, CA3 Pa) 562 F2d 895, cert den 435 US 904, 55 L Ed 2d 494, 98 S Ct 1449.

Fact that vessel makes regular or frequent visits to American ports of call is significant factor in determining that Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) is applicable to suits brought by injured seamen. Moncada v Lemuria Shipping Corp. (1974, CA2 NY) 491 F2d 470, cert den 417 US 947, 41 L Ed 2d 667, 94 S Ct 3072 and (disagreed with De Mateos v Texaco, Inc. (CA3 Pa) 562 F2d 895, cert den 435 US 904, 55 L Ed 2d 494, 98 S Ct 1449) and (disagreed with Chiazor v Transworld Drilling Co. (CA5 La) 648 F2d 1015, reh den (CA5 La) 659 F2d 1075 and cert den 455 US 1019, 72 L Ed 2d 136, 102 S Ct 1714) as stated in Vaz Borralho v Keydril Co. (CA5 Tex) 696 F2d 379, reh den (CA5 Tex) 710 F2d 207 and (disagreed with Tallentire v Offshore Logistics, Inc. (CA5 La) 754 F2d 1274, revd on other grounds (US) 91 L Ed 2d 174, 106 S Ct 2485); Southern Cross S.S. Co. v Firipis (1960, CA4 Va) 285 F2d 651, 84 ALR2d 895, cert den 365 US 869, 5 L Ed 2d 859, 81 S Ct 903 and (disagreed with Swain v Isthmian Lines, Inc. (CA3 Pa) 360 F2d 81 (disagreed with Chung, Yong Il v Overseas Navigation Co. (CA11 Ala) 774 F2d 1043, reh den, en banc (CA11 Ala) 779 F2d 60 and reh den, en banc (CA11 Ala) 779 F2d 60 and cert den (US) 90 L Ed 2d 346, 106 S Ct 1802)) and (disapproved on other grounds Griffin v Oceanic Contractors, Inc., 458 US 564, 73 L Ed 2d 973, 102 S Ct 3245, on remand (CA5 Tex) 685 F2d 139); Dalla v Atlas Maritime Co. (1983, CD Cal) 562 F Supp 752, affd (CA9 Cal) 771 F2d 1277.

Although absence of American port calls by vessel on which injury occurs generally may be regarded as factor opposing applicability of Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) to seaman's action for redress of injury, such calls are not absolutely essential to applicability of act, and act is applicable despite fact that vessel visited no American ports of call. Antypas v Cia. Maritima San Basilio, S. A. (1976, CA2 NY) 541 F2d 307, cert den 429 US 1098, 51 L Ed 2d 545, 97 S Ct 1116 and (disagreed with De Mateos v Texaco, Inc. (CA3 Pa) 562 F2d 895, cert den 435 US 904, 55 L Ed 2d 494, 98 S Ct 1449) and (disagreed with Chiazor v Transworld Drilling Co. (CA5 La) 648 F2d 1015, reh den (CA5 La) 659 F2d 1075 and cert den 455 US 1019, 72 L Ed 2d 136, 102 S Ct 1714) as stated in Vaz Borralho v Keydril Co. (CA5 Tex) 696 F2d 379, reh den (CA5 Tex) 710 F2d 207 and and (disagreed with Tallentire v Offshore Logistics, Inc. (CA5 La) 754 F2d 1274, revd on other grounds (US) 91 L Ed 2d 174, 106 S Ct 2485) and (disagreed with Cruz v Maritime Co. of Philippines (CA2 NY) 702 F2d 47 (disagreed with Pereira v Utah Transport, Inc. (CA9 Cal) 764 F2d 686, cert dismd (US) 89 L Ed 2d 362, 106 S Ct 1253)).

93. --Foreign ports

94. --Foreign round trip touching American port or injury occurring in American port

Fact that foreign ship voyaged between certain foreign ports and American ports, including New York, forum state, is insufficient to confer jurisdiction under 46 USCS Appx § 688. Agrio v Oceanic Operations Corp. (1961, SD NY) 204 F Supp 10.

In 46 USCS Appx § 688 action involving an injury sustained in American port by foreign seaman aboard foreign vessel in course of voyage beginning and ending in foreign country, appropriate course is for federal district court to deny § 688 claim on merits, but this denial of § 688 claim on merits leaves court free to consider whether, with due regard to doctrine of forum non conveniens, it should take jurisdiction and apply relevant foreign law. Volkenburg v Nederland-Amerik. Stoomv. Maats (1963, DC Mass) 221 F Supp 925, 1964 AMC 53, affd (CA1 Mass) 336 F2d 480, 8 FR Serv 2d 34.13, Case 12, 1964 AMC 1958.

95. --American ports

In 46 USCS Appx § 688 action, alien seaman who had been domiciled in United States for over 20 years, during greater part of which time he had served on American ships, and who was injured on voyage begun and ended in United States, nearly all of which was in territorial waters of United States, filed libel in rem against the vessel of foreign registry to recover for such injuries which was properly dismissed; however, since libel in personam against owner of vessel stated good claim it should have been tried on its merits. Gambera v Bergoty (1942, CA2 NY) 132 F2d 414, 1043 AMC 45, cert den 319 US 742, 87 L Ed 1699, 63 S Ct 1030.

Alien seaman who signed on foreign ship in American port for voyage beginning and ending in American waters can sue under 46 USCS Appx § 688. Kyriakos v Goulandris (1945, CA2 NY) 151 F2d 132.

District Court had no discretionary power to refuse to adjudicate case brought under 46 USCS Appx § 688 by alien seaman, assaulted within territorial waters of United States, aboard ship flying Liberian flag, owned by Liberian corporation which was wholly owned by Panamanian corporation, all stock in which was owned by United States citizens, on voyage from Baltimore to Philadelphia, articles for which were signed in Baltimore, and where seaman had signed declaration of intention to become United States citizen few months after assault. Bartholomew v Universe Tankships, Inc. (1959, CA2 NY) 263 F2d 437, 1959 AMC 273, 1 FR Serv 2d 621, cert den 359 US 1000, 3 L Ed 2d 1030, 79 S Ct 1138 and (disagreed with De Mateos v Texaco, Inc. (CA3 Pa) 562 F2d 895, cert den 435 US 904, 55 L Ed 2d 494, 98 S Ct 1449) and (disagreed with Chiazor v Transworld Drilling Co. (CA5 La) 648 F2d 1015, reh den (CA5 La) 659 F2d 1075 and cert den 455 US 1019, 72 L Ed 2d 136, 102 S Ct 1714) as stated in Vaz Borralho v Keydril Co. (CA5 Tex) 696 F2d 379, reh den (CA5 Tex) 710 F2d 207 and (disagreed with Tallentire v Offshore Logistics, Inc. (CA5 La) 754 F2d 1274, revd on other grounds (US) 91 L Ed 2d 174, 106 S Ct 2485).

District Court had jurisdiction of action brought by foreign seamen for injuries sustained aboard foreign ship at sea, where plaintiffs shipped from San Francisco for round voyage and ship was being operated by American citizens, residents of San Francisco. The Sinaloa (1923, DC Cal) 292 F 640.

96. Base of operations

In determining whether 46 USCS Appx § 688 is applicable, shipowner's base of operations is factor of importance. 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.

Base of operation of defendant is significant factor in choice of law context; American base of operations can be sufficient to support application of American law. Koke v Phillips Petroleum Co. (1984, CA5 Tex) 730 F2d 211.

Vessel on which injury occurred has base of operations in United States if it has substantial and continuing contact with United States; such contacts cannot be defined so loosely that every alien seaman injured in United States territorial waters has right to bring action against his alien employer in American courts, nor so rigidly that alien owner engaged in extensive business operation in this country may have advantage over citizens engaged in same business by allowing him to escape obligations of Jones Act employer. Dalla v Atlas Maritime Co. (1985, CA9 Cal) 771 F2d 1277.

Foreign seaman, injured on high seas in foreign flag ship owned by foreign interests may sue under 46 USCS Appx § 688, if vessel has substantial American business contacts. Mattes v National Hellenic American Line, S. A. (1977, SD NY) 427 F Supp 619.

Base of operations found to be in United States is factor supporting applicability of Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688). Dalla v Atlas Maritime Co. (1983, CD Cal) 562 F Supp 752, affd (CA9 Cal) 771 F2d 1277.

97. --Foreign

Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) is inapplicable where shipowner has foreign base of operations. Hoidas v Orion & Global Chartering Co. (1977, SD NY) 440 F Supp 53; Chirinos de Alvarez v Creole Petroleum Corp. (1980, CA3 Del) 613 F2d 1240.

98. --Principal place of business in United States

Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) is inapplicable despite maintenance by shipowners of principal places of business in United States. Filippou v Italia Societa per Azioni di Navizione (1966, DC Mass) 254 F Supp 162.

Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) is applicable where it is found that shipowner maintains principal place of business in United States. Mpiliris v Hellenic Lines, Ltd. (1969, DC Tex) 323 F Supp 865, affd (CA5 Tex) 440 F2d 1163.

Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) is applicable on basis of shipowners' maintenance, through parent corporation, of bases of operations or principal places of business in United States. Groves v Universe Tankships, Inc. (1970, SD NY) 308 F Supp 826; Rode v Sedco, Inc. (1975, ED Tex) 394 F Supp 206; Castanho v Jackson Marine, Inc. (1980, ED Tex) 484 F Supp 201, affd in part and app dismd in part (CA5 Tex) 650 F2d 546, reh den (CA5 Tex) 656 F2d 700 and reh den (CA5 Tex) 656 F2d 700.

99. --American revenues

District Court erred in failing to apply 46 USCS Appx § 688 to action by Greek seaman for injuries allegedly sustained while vessel was on high seas where (1) at least some of stockholders of vessel owner were American citizens, (2) vessel was operating on liner service conducted by New York corporation and vessel was under direct control of that corporation and (3) earnings from vessel appeared to be collected in New York and expenses of vessel paid from New York; such contacts were substantial and predominated over such factors as ship's flag, place of incorporation of shipowner, and seaman's nationality. Antypas v Cia. Maritima San Basilio, S. A. (1976, CA2 NY) 541 F2d 307, cert den 429 US 1098, 51 L Ed 2d 545, 97 S Ct 1116, and (disagreed with De Mateos v Texaco, Inc. (CA3 Pa) 562 F2d 895, cert den 435 US 904, 55 L Ed 2d 494, 98 S Ct 1449) and (disagreed with Chiazor v Transworld Drilling Co. (CA5 La) 648 F2d 1015, reh den (CA5 La) 659 F2d 1075 and cert den 455 US 1019, 72 L Ed 2d 136, 102 S Ct 1714) as stated in Vaz Borralho v Keydril Co. (CA5 Tex) 696 F2d 379, reh den (CA5 Tex) 710 F2d 207 and (disagreed with Tallentire v Offshore Logistics, Inc. (CA5 La) 754 F2d 1274, revd on other grounds (US) 91 L Ed 2d 174, 106 S Ct 2485) and (disagreed with Cruz v Maritime Co. of Philippines (CA2 NY) 702 F2d 47 (disagreed with Pereira v Utah Transport, Inc. (CA9 Cal) 764 F2d 686, cert dismd (US) 89 L Ed 2d 362, 106 S Ct 1253)).

Jurisdiction under 46 USCS Appx § 688 existed in action for wrongful death of foreign seaman in accident in United States port, where vessel had substantial base of operations in United States and owners derived substantial revenues from United States trade, even though ship flew Greek flag, had Greek registry, and seaman was of Greek nationality and had signed his employment contract in Greece. Fisher v The Agios Nicolaos V (1980, CA5 Tex) 628 F2d 308, 68 ALR Fed 342, reh den (CA5 Tex) 636 F2d 1107 and cert den 454 US 816, 70 L Ed 2d 84, 102 S Ct 92, reh den 454 US 1129, 71 L Ed 2d 117, 102 S Ct 982.

Jones Act is applicable to injury suffered by seaman while working aboard ship in New Jersey port notwithstanding that seaman and vessel are Greek, that vessel's owner and charterer have principal places of business in Greece, and that seaman's articles of employment are Greek and call for resolution of all disputes arising out of his employment in Greek courts, where to significant extent vessel was managed from New York during 15 months preceding seaman's injury and earned substantial income from cargo originating in or bound for United States, and individuals who owned corporations which owned and chartered vessel had some direct involvement in management of business ventures from American shores. Karvelis v Constellation Lines SA (1985, SD NY) 608 F Supp 966.

CLICK HERE TO CONTACT US

DISCLAIMER