Jones Act Statute 46 USCS Appx § 688 Maritime Law Wrongful Death Action Seamen's Right Maintenance and Cure Employers Duty Liability

37. Wrongful death actions

Action lies under general maritime law for death caused by violation of maritime duties; thus, widow and representative of estate of longshoreman killed while working aboard vessel on navigable waters within state were entitled to bring action in state court against owner of vessel to recover damages for wrongful death and for pain and suffering experienced by decedent prior to death, predicating claims upon both negligence and unseaworthiness of vessel even though statutory right of action for death under state law did not encompass unseaworthiness as basis of liability. Moragne v States Marine Lines, Inc. (1970) 398 US 375, 26 L Ed 2d 339, 90 S Ct 1772, on remand (CA5 Fla) 446 F2d 906.

Moragne v State Marine Line, Inc. (1970) 398 US 375, 26 L Ed 2d 339, 90 S Ct 1772 on remand (CA5 Fla) 446 F2d 906, did not require decedent's widow who had brought action in federal court for wrongful death, to be given another opportunity to sue under state wrongful death statute. Epling v M. T. Epling Co. (1970, CA6 Ohio) 435 F2d 732, cert den 401 US 963, 28 L Ed 2d 247, 91 S Ct 990.

46 USCS Appx § 688 prevails over state death statutes not constituting part of maritime law. Renew v United States (1932, DC Ga) 1 F Supp 256, 1932 AMC 1110.

No action lies under state law to recover damages for wrongful death occurring on navigable waters since wrongful death action under general maritime law has pre-empted field. 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Barge Co. (1975, ED La) 395 F Supp 978 (disapproved on other grounds Culver v Slater Boat Co. (CA5 La) 688 F2d 280, op withdrawn, in part (CA5 La) 722 F2d 114, cert den 467 US 1252, 82 L Ed 2d 842, 104 S Ct 3537 and cert den (US) 83 L Ed 2d 37, 105 S Ct 90).

Potential culpability of U.S. will not be considered in calculation of damages liability in complex asbestos litigation, where serviceman's installation of asbestos in naval vessels constitutes course of activity incident to service, because jurisdiction over U.S. could not be had pursuant to Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688), Suits in Admiralty Act (46 USCS Appx § § 741 et seq.), or Public Vessels Act (46 USCS § § 781 et seq.). Re Joint Eastern & Southern Dist. Asbestos Litigation (1992, ED NY) 798 F Supp 940.

Action lies under general maritime law for death caused by violation of maritime duties so as to permit wrongful death claims based on unseaworthiness. Moragne v States Marine Lines, Inc., 398 US 375, 26 L Ed 2d 339, 90 S Ct 1772, on remand (CA5 Fla) 446 F2d 906.

Where 46 USCS Appx § 688 is controlling, states statutes giving wrongful death action are inapplicable in case of seaman's death. Carrington v Panama Mail S.S. Co. (1929) 136 Misc 850, 241 NYS 347, revd on other grounds 232 App Div 695, 247 NYS 674, different results reached on reh 233 App Div 855, 251 NYS 803.

38. --Action against non-employer

46 USCS Appx § 688 is exclusive of all state legislation, but only in field which it covers, which field is liability of employers to their employees, and seaman's or stevedore's widow may still invoke state statutes giving her right of action for death of her husband if caused by third person within territorial limits of state. Kwasizur v Dawnic S.S. Co. (1938, DC Pa) 25 F Supp 327, 1938 AMC 1231.

Widow's wrongful death judgment against manufacturer of asbestos insulation on ships that deceased husband was employed on cannot be offset by amounts received in settlement by widow from shipowners, where agreement settled widow's claims against shipowners under general maritime law and 46 USCS Appx § 688, because liability to seaman under unseaworthiness theory or Jones Act claim is form of liability which is not based on traditional notions of fault and is of wholly different character than liability for common-law negligence, and thus shipowners' breach of duty to provide safe place to work does not make shipowners joint tortfeasor with negligent manufacturer. Boyett v Keene Corp. (1993, ED Tex) 815 F Supp 204, 1993 AMC 1964, affd (CA5) 1993 US App LEXIS 15852, reh, en banc, den (CA5) 1993 US App LEXIS 19335.

39. Miscellaneous

Requirement that claim for adjustment be presented to comptroller of city before commencement of any action against city is inconsistent with uniform operation of maritime law within all states, which cannot be deflected or impaired by state statutes. Frame v New York (1940, DC NY) 34 F Supp 194, 1940 AMC 935.

Louisiana direct action statute was inapplicable to case involving injury on fixed platform on Outer Continental Shelf even though cause of action was based on 46 USCS Appx § 688. Koesler v Harvey Applicators, Inc. (1976, ED La) 416 F Supp 872.

Workmen's compensation action by injured seaman is not precluded under 46 USCS Appx § 688, notwithstanding employer's insurance coverage for such claims, where supreme court of state in which injury occurred has ruled that such coverage is not "ocean marine insurance" under state statute precluding Jones Act claims when "ocean marine insurance" is carried. Dominick v Houtech Inland Well Service, Inc. (1989, ED La) 718 F Supp 489.

C. Applicability to Foreign Ships, Seamen, and Occurrences

1. In General

40. Generally

Provisions of 46 USCS Appx § 688 are applicable to foreign events, foreign ships, and foreign seamen, only in accordance with usual doctrine and practices of maritime law; and, that process has been duly served and necessary parties are before court of United States is not persuasive factor in determining whether application should be given to 46 USCS Appx § 688 since jurisdiction of maritime cases in all countries is so wide and nature of its subject matter so far-flung that there would be no justification for determining law of controversy simply on basis that local jurisdiction of parties is obtainable. Lauritzen v Larsen (1953) 345 US 571, 97 L Ed 1254, 73 S Ct 921.

Decisional process of arriving at conclusion on subject of application of 46 USCS Appx § 688 involves ascertainment of facts or groups of facts which constitute contacts between transaction involved in case and United States, and then deciding whether or not they are substantial; each factor is to be weighed and evaluated only to end that after each factor has been given consideration, rational and satisfactory conclusion may be arrived at on question of whether all factors present add up to necessary substantiality, and each factor, or contact, or group of facts must be tested in light of underlying objective, which is to effectuate liberal purposes of 46 USCS Appx § 688. 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.

46 USCS § 688(b) denies relief under Jones Act and under general maritime law to widow of foreign diver whose death occurred in oil and gas related accident in foreign territorial waters. Camejo v Ocean Drilling & Exploration (1988, CA5 Tex) 838 F2d 1374.

Applicability of 46 USCS Appx § 688 is choice of law problem and depends upon sufficiency of contacts between transaction involved in case and United States. Lascaratos v S/T Olympic Flame (1964, ED Pa) 227 F Supp 161, 1965 AMC 310.

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.

Even though suit under 46 USCS Appx § 688 is between foreigners, it can still be within jurisdiction of United States District Court; question of whether jurisdiction should be exercised is not arbitrary one, but one of reviewable, sound discretion. Camarias v M/V Lady Era (1969, DC Va) 318 F Supp 379, affd (CA4 Va) 432 F2d 1234.

41. Congressional intent

Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) contains no clearly expressed intention of Congress to legislate for alien seamen who have signed articles aboard foreign ship. The Paula (1937, CA2 NY) 91 F2d 1001, cert den 302 US 750, 82 L Ed 580, 58 S Ct 270.

It is extremely unlikely that Congress meant to exclude from Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) aliens who, in every sense that matters, are American seamen merely because they have not been naturalized. Gambera v Bergoty (1942, CA2 NY) 132 F2d 414, cert den 319 US 742, 87 L Ed 1699, 63 S Ct 1030.

Congressional purpose of Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688), to benefit American seamen, would not be served were courts to encourage hiring of foreign seamen in American ports in preference to alien seamen, by holding ship owners liable to American but not to foreign seamen. Kyriakos v Goulandris (1945, CA2 NY) 151 F2d 132.

One of purposes of Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) is to afford indirect protection to American passengers whose well-being is entrusted to crew members, therefore United States has interest in extending law to protect vessel's foreign crew members from injuries which might, in turn, affect safety of American citizens. Mattes v National Hellenic American Line, S. A. (1977, SD NY) 427 F Supp 619.

42. Factors considered

Basic criteria upon which to determine 46 USCS Appx § 688 jurisdiction as affected by nationality of seaman, vessel owner, or place of injury are: (1) place of wrongful act; (2) law of flag; (3) allegiance or domicil of injured person; (4) allegiance of defendant ship owner; (5) place of contract; (6) inaccessibility of foreign forum; and (7) law of forum. Lauritzen v Larsen (1953) 345 US 571, 97 L Ed 1254, 73 S Ct 921.

Factors to be considered in determining whether particular shipowner should be held liable under Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) include place of wrongful act, law of flag, allegiance or domicile of injured seamen, allegiance of defendant shipowner, place where contract of employment is made, inaccessibility of foreign forum, and law of foreign forum; these factors are not exhaustive and shipowner's base of operations is another factor of importance in determining whether Act is applicable. 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 whether contacts in given case are "substantial" courts have given consideration to place of wrongful act; law of the flag; allegiance or domicil of injured party; allegiance of ship owner; place where contract of employment was made; inaccessibility of foreign forum; law of forum; and ship owner's base of operations. 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).

There are seven relevant choice of law factors: (1) place of wrongful act; (2) law of ship's flag; (3) allegiance or domicile of injured seaman; (4) allegiance of shipowner; (5) place where shipping articles were signed; (6) inaccessibility of foreign forum; (7) law of forum; underlying purpose for identifying and weighing factors is not to effectuate liberal purposes of 46 USCS Appx § 688, but to determine whether § 688 should be applied. 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.

Seven-factor list of criteria set forth in Lauritzen v Larsen (1953) 345 US 571, 97 L Ed 1254, 73 S Ct 921, for making Jones Act choice of law determinations was not intended to be exhaustive. 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 does not apply to case in which Honduran seaman working for Panamanian corporation operated from Greece on Liberian ship operated by British corporation was injured in Canadian waters and treated in England and Honduras. Gutierrez v Diana Invest. Corp. (1991, CA6 Mich) 946 F2d 455, 1992 AMC 741.

There are seven factors to be considered in determining whether crewmen are entitled to bring action under 46 USCS Appx § 688; they include: place of wrongful act, law of the flag, allegiance or domicle of injured, allegiance of defendant shipowner, place of contract, inaccessibility of foreign forum, and law of forum; although tests set out by these factors is not a mechanical one it nevertheless provides framework within which to determine applicable body of law. Re Lidoriki Maritime Corp. (1975, ED Pa) 404 F Supp 1402.

Determination of subject matter jurisdiction under 46 USCS Appx § 688 turns on qualitative substantiality of contacts between transaction involved and United States; among contacts to be considered are place of wrongful act, law of flag, allegiance and domicile of injured seaman, allegiance of owner, place of contract of employment, inaccesability of foreign forum, law of forum, and shipowner's base of operations. Hazell v Booth S.S. Co. (1977, SD NY) 436 F Supp 561, adhered to (SD NY) 444 F Supp 85.

Determination whether to apply Jones Act to injuries sustained by American citizen on board foreign vessel includes consideration of place of wrongful act, law of flag, allegiance of domicile of injured person, allegiance of defendant shipowner, place of contract, inaccessibility of foreign forum, law of forum, and base of operations of defendant. Jones v The Vessel Nair (1984, SD Cal) 586 F Supp 507, corrected (SD Cal) 612 F Supp 414.

43. --Substantial contacts

Test for applicability of Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) is based upon substantiality of contacts between accident and United States; "substantiality" is defined as something more than minimal and something less than preponderant. 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); Moutzouris v National Shipping & Trading Co. (1961, SD NY) 194 F Supp 468; Voyiatzis v National Shipping & Trading Corp. (1961, SD NY) 199 F Supp 920; Pandazopoulos v Universal Cruise Line, Inc. (1973, SD NY) 365 F Supp 208.

46 USCS Appx § 688 jurisdiction exists only where there are substantial contacts between transactions involved in case and United States, with substantiality to be determined on absolute scale and not by comparing or balancing presence of certain contacts with absence of others. 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 on other grounds 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).

Law of forum, 46 USCS Appx § 688, does not become factor in choice of law process simply because jurisdiction over parties had been obtained by American court; conclusion that 46 USCS Appx § 688 or other American law is applicable to maritime case involving foreign elements is warranted only if, as result of its search, court discovers more than minimal nexus between claim and American forum; contacts found need not be preponderant, but must be substantial. Pandazopoulos v Universal Cruise Line, Inc. (1973, SD NY) 365 F Supp 208.

Applicability of Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) depends on substantiality of contacts of controversy with United States. Manlugon v A/S Facto (1976, SD NY) 419 F Supp 550.

Lack of any substantial connection in any of factors in 46 USCS Appx § 688 prevents action in United States' courts by Honduran seaman injured on Liberian ship owned by Liberian shipowner. Flores v Central American S.S. Agency, Inc. (1984, SD NY) 594 F Supp 735.

44. --Weighing and balancing of factors

Of elements to be considered in determining whether Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) applies in particular circumstance, law of flag, place of injury, place where seaman's contract was made and inaccessibility of foreign forum have been accorded relatively little importance and allegiance of parties, shipowner's base of operations have been accorded greatest significance. Koupetoris v Konkar Intrepid Corp. (1976, CA2 NY) 535 F2d 1392.

Where connection between injury and parties involved is at least as closely identified with United States as with foreign country, Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) is to be applied. Farmer v Standard Dredging Corp. (1958, DC Del) 167 F Supp 381.

Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) is not to be applied to suit by alien seaman against foreign shipowner where contacts with United States are of incidental importance as against foreign contacts and services rendered by seaman pursuant to balancing test employed to determine applicability of Jones Act, where 2 tests of weighing factors and grouping contacts are equated. Shahid v A/S J. Ludwig Mowinckels Rederi (1964, SD NY) 236 F Supp 751.

In determining whether to apply Jones Act to injuries sustained by American citizen on board foreign vessel, law of flag is more important than most other factors; test is not mechanical one; where links to United States are weak and interest of another sovereign are substantial Jones Act is not applicable. Jones v The Vessel Nair (1984, SD Cal) 586 F Supp 507, corrected (SD Cal) 612 F Supp 414.

In making choice of law determination with respect to applicability of Jones Act in drilling rig cases, place of wrong, domicile of injured person, and place where contract was made take on greater significance then other factors; corporate base of operations is considered of less significance then base of day-to-day operations. Sherrill v Brinkerhoff Maritime Drilling (1985, ND Cal) 615 F Supp 1021.

Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) does not apply to foreign seamen's claims against employer, where seamen were possibly exposed to HIV virus through contaminated hepatitis vaccine--manufactured and distributed in India--while working on drilling rig on continental shelf off Indian coast, because only connection to U.S. here is employer's partial allegiance to U.S.; Indian substantive law should apply. Marriott v Sedco Forex Int'l Resources (1993, DC Mass) 827 F Supp 59, 1993 AMC 2949, summary op at (DC Mass) 21 M.L.W. 3214.

45. --Considerations of comity

Jones Act should be held inapplicable to suits involving foreign events since such suits may cause ill will among foreign nations and may saddle foreign shipowners with responsibilities which they have no means of anticipating. O'Neill v Cunard White Star, Ltd. (1947, CA2 NY) 160 F2d 446, cert den 332 US 773, 92 L Ed 358, 68 S Ct 56.

Considerations of comity and international law pervade question of applicability of Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) where American interests register ships under foreign flags of convenience, and are delicate and competing considerations of policy to be dealt with by congressional investigation and enactment rather than through judicial legislation. Markakis v Liberian S/S The Mparmpa Christos (1958, DC NY) 161 F Supp 487.

Application of Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) on basis of slight American contact holds danger of possibility of retaliatory lawsuits with attendant odious consequences, since jurisdiction would also lie in many foreign nations having rules quite different from those prevailing in domestic courts, and there would thus be danger of multiplicity of forums with increased danger of divergent results. Mpampouros v S.S. Auromar (1962, DC Md) 203 F Supp 944.

International stability and principle of comity would be defeated if American courts were to impose different standard for each member of ship's crew dependent upon his nationality. Shahid v A/S J. Ludwig Mowinckels Rederi (1964, SD NY) 236 F Supp 751.

46. Procedural considerations

District Court's dismissal of action brought by Honduran seaman under 46 USCS Appx § 688 for lack of jurisdiction was improper where court relied exclusively upon defendant's affidavits and where defendant's answers to interrogatories directed at requisite jurisdictional factors were outstanding and overdue. Blanco v Carigulf Lines (1980, CA5 Ala) 632 F2d 656.

Dismissal of Scottish deep-sea diver's claim upon determination that foreign law was applicable is confusion of subject matter jurisdiction with forum non conveniens doctrine where court did not address whether diver was seaman under § 688, whether court had power to determine claims, or whether valid cause of action was stated. Nicol v Gulf Fleet Supply Vessels, Inc. (1984, CA5 La) 743 F2d 289 later proceeding (CA5 La) 743 F2d 298, 40 FR Serv 2d 196.

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 § 688 claim on mertis, 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.

Nicaraguan law applied in case of Nicaraguan seamen hired under Nicaraguan contracts to work aboard shrimping vessels and injured in Nicaraguan waters; consideration of which jurisdiction would afford more generous recovery was not valid consideration. Solano v Gulf King 55, Inc. (2000, CA5 Tex) 212 F3d 902.

2. Place of Injury

47. Generally

Place of injury is purely fortuitous factor of minimal importance in supporting applicability of Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688); standing alone, place of injury is not substantial contact with United States and is insufficient to warrant jurisdiction under Act. Koupetoris v Konkar Intrepid Corp. (1976, CA2 NY) 535 F2d 1392.

Greater significance is to be given to law of flag, allegiance or domicile or injured, and allegiance of shipowner than is given to fact that United States was place of wrongful act. Nakken v Fearnley & Eger (1955, DC NY) 137 F Supp 288.

46 USCS Appx § 688 would not be invoked in action where only contact with United States was occurrence of injury and its treatment in United States. Gkiafis v S.S. Yiosonas (1966, DC Md) 254 F Supp 825, affd in part and revd in part on other grounds (CA4 Md) 387 F2d 460.

Place of wrongful act is of minor importance in determining law governing suit by seaman against foreign shipowner. Re Lidoriki Maritime Corp. (1975, ED Pa) 404 F Supp 1402.

Applicability of Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) depends upon substantiality of context of controversy with United States, and where all other factors are foreign-connected, mere happening of accident in American waters is insufficient to invoke Act. Manlugon v A/S Facto (1976, SD NY) 419 F Supp 550.

48. American territorial waters

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.

Seaman, resident and citizen of Greece employed aboard vessel of Panamanian registry, owned by Panamanian corporation and managed and operated by Liberian corporation was not entitled to maintain action under Jones Act for personal injuries sustained aboard such vessel simply because, at time of injury, he was on board vessel which may have been traveling in United States waters. Kukias v Chandris Lines, Inc. (1988, CA1) 839 F2d 860.

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.

There is no jurisdiction for action under 46 USCS Appx § 688 where plaintiff is foreign national who signed aboard foreign ship in foreign country for voyage beginning and ending in foreign port, even if injury occurs in United States waters. Catherall v Cunard S.S. Co. (1951, DC NY) 101 F Supp 230.

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.

Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) is applicable to suit for injury sustained in American territorial waters by Greek seaman aboard Liberian registered and American owned ship. Voyiatzis v National Shipping & Trading Corp. (1961, SD NY) 199 F Supp 920.

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.

Philipine seaman's action for injuries sustained in Mississippi River aboard Singapore registered and Liechtenstein owned vessel is insufficient basis for application of Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688); standing alone, mere fact of injury in American waters is insufficient to invoke applicability of Jones Act. Ulat v Transreeder Schiffahrtsgesellschaft, m.b.h. (1976, DC La) 1976 AMC 2529.

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.

Greek corporation was "employer" within meaning of Jones Act where injuries were sustained by Greek seaman aboard Greek flag ship in port of New Orleans. Hellenic Lines, Ltd. v Rhoditis, 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.

49. American port

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.

Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) is applicable to case in which Greek seaman was injured in Port of New Orleans while working aboard Greek vessel, since place of accident is factor to be considered in determining liability of shipowner under Jones Act. 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.

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.

Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) is applicable to accident which occurred in American port despite fact that injuries were sustained by Hungarian seaman aboard Greek vessel. The Leontios Teryazos (1942, DC NY) 45 F Supp 618.

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.

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.

Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) is not applicable to suit by Greek seaman for injuries sustained on Swedish vessel where only contact with United States is fact that accident occurred while vessel was at dock in Virginia. Katelouzos v The Othem (1960, ED Va) 184 F Supp 526.

Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) does not apply to Egyptian seaman's suit for injuries sustained both in New York and Venezuela while working aboard Norwegian vessel, since only connection with United States is fact that one of injuries was sustained in Port of New York. Shahid v A/S J. Ludwig Mowinckels Rederi (1964, SD NY) 236 F Supp 751.

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.

Mere fact that death of Greek seaman aboard Greek registered and Panamanian owned vessel occurred in New York harbor is insufficient to invoke application of Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688); although single contact of death in New York does not render widow's claim specious, it does not, as matter of law, create necessary substantiality. 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; 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.

Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) is applicable to Korean seaman's suit against New York corporation where seaman sustained injuries in Alabama and was working at direction of Nigerian employer when accident occurred; although employer-employee relationship is essential to recovery, employer need not be owner or operator of vessel. Kwak Hyung Rok v Continental Seafoods, Inc. (1978, SD Ala) 462 F Supp 894, affd without op (CA5 Ala) 614 F2d 292 and affd without op (CA5 Ala) 614 F2d 292.

50. --Other American contacts present

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 on other grounds 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).

In wrongful death action brought by surviving widow and dependents of Greek seaman killed aboard vessel flying Greek flag and of Greek registry, owned by Liberian corporation, and operated by Panamanian corporation, United States law is appropriately applied where accident occurred in American port, to which seaman had flown to join vessel, and in which port he had worked during his entire service on vessel and vessel's entire service under its present ownership and its entire revenues arose from base of operations in United States. Fisher v The Agios Nicolaos v (1980, CA5 Tex) 628 F2d 308, 68 ALR Fed 342, reh den (CA5 Tex) 636 F2d 1107, reh den 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.

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.

51. Foreign territorial waters or port

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.

In actions for wrongful death and personal injury brought on behalf of citizens and domiciliaries of Trinidad who were injured aboard special-purpose, submersible drilling vessel which was drilling within Trinidad's territorial waters at time of accident, law of Trinidad, rather than Jones Act is properly applied, where vessel was conducting a substantial and rather permanent operation under license from Trinidad government within territorial waters of that nation, day-to-day operation was conducted and supervised by staff in Trinidad, Trinidad was place of wrongful act and place of contract and allegiance and domicile of injured workers. Phillips v Amoco Trinidad Oil Co. (1980, CA9 Cal) 632 F2d 82, cert den 451 US 920, 68 L Ed 2d 312, 101 S Ct 1999.

Jones Act applies in Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands. Misch v Zee Enterprises, Inc. (1989, CA9 N Mariana Islands) 879 F2d 628.

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.

Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) is applicable to suit by representative of Scotish seaman who drowned in Port of Rotterdam, and seaman need not be on vessel of employment at time of death or injury. Allan v Brown & Root, Inc. (1980, SD Tex) 491 F Supp 398.

Foreign national's Jones Act (46 USCS § 688) and general maritime claims must be dismissed, where Jamaican citizen and resident was in Nova Scotia working as deckhand on Nova Scotia-to-Maine ferry owned by Panamanian and Bermuda corporations when he sustained serious back injuries during course of his duties, because choice-of-law analysis mandated by Supreme Court compels conclusion that American law does not apply in this case. Walters v Prince of Fundy Cruises, Ltd. (1991, DC Me) 781 F Supp 811.

Seaman's claim for injuries was barred by 46 USCS Appx § 688(b), where seaman sought damages for injuries suffered aboard vessel while he was stretching out tugger wire to be used in recovering pipeline marker buoys for oil rig, because seaman was involved in enterprise engaged in production of offshore energy resources, and injury occurred in territorial waters of nation other than U.S. Samuel v Tidewater Marine Servs. (1996, ED La) 943 F Supp 644.

52. --Other American contacts present

Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) was not applicable to claims arising from explosion and fire aboard crew launch in Lake Maracaibo Venezuela, where only factors favoring plaintiffs were law of forum and allegiance of shipowner while, on other hand, accident occurred in Venezuela, vessel was registered and sailed under Venezuelan flag, crewmen were all residents and citizens of Venezuela, employment contract was made in Venezuela, Venezuelan courts were available to parties, and shipowner's "base of operations" was in Venezuela. Chirinos de Alvarez v Creole Petroleum Corp. (1980, CA3 Del) 613 F2d 1240.

Law of Trinidad rather than United States law applies to wrongful death actions and person injury actions where plaintiffs were citizens of Trinidad and accident occurred in territorial waters off Trinidad coast on drilling rig which had to have been towed to drilling site, even though rig was documented under laws of United States and flew American flag. Phillips v Amoco Trinidad Oil Co. (1980, CA9 Cal) 632 F2d 82, cert den 451 US 920, 68 L Ed 2d 312, 101 S Ct 1999.

District Court properly dismissed actions under Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) brought by British citizens for damages resulting from injuries which occurred in North Sea off coast of Norway on semi-submersible vessel which was owned by American corporation and which flew American flag, in light of lack of substantial interests requiring application of American law where (1) plaintiffs had never lived or been present within United States, (2) injuries occurred in foreign territorial waters and (3) injuries occurred in context of "fixed rig" operations. Koke v Phillips Petroleum Co. (1984, CA5 Tex) 730 F2d 211.

Contention that vessel was owned by Americans was not sufficient to make Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) applicable to injury of sailor where vessel operated under flag of Panama, injury occurred in waters of Saudi Arabia, vessel's base of operations was limited to waters of Saudi Arabia, sailor was citizen and domiciliary of Philippines, and employment contract provided that Philippine law should apply. Villar v Crowley Maritime Corp. (1986, CA9 Cal) 782 F2d 1478.

Place of contract is irrelevant in determining applicability of Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) to suit for death of British West Indian seaman killed in Trinidad aboard Liberian vessel; in view of substantiality of American contacts present in case, largely fortuitous place of death is without substantial weight. Groves v Universe Tankships, Inc. (1970, SD NY) 308 F Supp 826.

Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) is not applicable to seaman injured off ship in Vietnam, despite American contacts, since injuries occurred off ship in foreign nation and were not suffered in course of employment. Russell v States S.S. Co. (1973, DC Or) 376 F Supp 233.

Seaman's Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) claim is barred by § 688(b), where Honduran seaman aboard U.S. flagged vessel was injured during course and scope of his employment while in territorial waters of Mexico, because seaman's claims fall squarely within prohibition of § 688(b) regardless of clause in working agreement designating U.S. courts as forum for resolving "labor disputes," which include disputes over wages, hours, or other terms of employment but not personal injury claims. Olin v Tidewater Inc. (1995, SD Tex) 897 F Supp 968.

Where deceased was member of crew of fishing vessel owned by citizens of United States, under United States registry, and operated out of California port, jurisdiction under 46 USCS Appx § 688 was in California, even though death occurred off coast of Ecuador. Correia v Van Camp Sea Food Co. (1952) 113 Cal App 2d 71, 248 P2d 81.

46 USCS Appx § 688 applies to injuries occurring on American vessels in foreign ports or harbors. Carrington v Panama Mail S.S. Co. (1929) 136 Misc 850, 241 NYS 347, 1930 AMC 289, revd on other grounds 232 App Div 695, 247 NYS 674, different results reached on reh 233 App Div 855, 251 NYS 803.

53. ----American seaman injured

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.

Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) is applicable to injuries and death sustained by American seamen while they were being transported by local taxi operator in Trinidad where seamen of American ship were ill and were being transported from ship under federal law requiring that, in order to discharge incapacitated seaman in foreign port he must be taken to United States consulate where arrangements can be made for his return to United States, since local taxi driver was agent of shipowner for purposes of Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688). Hopson v Texaco, Inc. (1966) 383 US 262, 15 L Ed 2d 740, 86 S Ct 765.

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 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.

54. High seas

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 was not unduly onerous for American citizen to make return trip to Mexico for trial, and written contract was made in Mexico. Bilyk v Vessel Nair (1985, CA9 Cal) 754 F2d 1541.

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, ship 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.

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.

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.

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.

3. Nationality or Ownership of Vessel

a. In General

55. Law of the flag

If law of flag is to control in action under 46 USCS Appx § 688, flag must not be one merely of convenience but should be bona fide. 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).

Law of flag would not be accorded controlling weight in determining 46 USCS Appx § 688 jurisdiction where vessel involved was drilling rig and not commercial sailing vessel. Phillips v Amoco Trinidad Oil Co. (1980, CA9 Cal) 632 F2d 82, cert den 451 US 920, 68 L Ed 2d 312, 101 S Ct 1999.

In case of injury to American seaman, occurring on foreign vessel on high seas, existence and nature of cause of action for alleged wrong is governed by law of country under which vessel is registered. The Oriskany (1933, DC Md) 3 F Supp 805.

One who engages to serve on board foreign ship necessarily undertakes to be bound by law of country to which ship belongs; jurisdiction of laws of flag nation accompany vessel not only over high seas but everywhere else it may be waterborne. Radovcic v The Princ Pavle (1942, DC NY) 45 F Supp 15.

b. Foreign Ownership

56. 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.

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.

Brazilian law applies where Brazilian seaman was injured in Brazil, employment contract was made in Brazil, and employer was Brazilian corporation. De Oliveira v Delta Marine Drilling Co. (1983, CA5 Tex) 707 F2d 843, reh den (CA5 Tex) 715 F2d 577.

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.

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

Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) is not applicable to suit by Yugoslavian seaman for injuries sustained aboard Yugoslavian ship on high seas, since seaman undertakes to be bound by law of nation to which ship belongs. Radovcic v The Princ Pavle (1942, DC NY) 45 F Supp 15.

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.

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.

Where libelant, Egyptian national and nonresident of United States, brought suit for personal injuries against Norwegian corporation, registered owner of Norwegian flag tanker on which libelant served and was injured while in New York port, court did not have subject matter jurisdiction of 46 USCS Appx § 688 action. The Shahid v A/S J. Ludwig Mowinckels Rederi (1964, SD NY) 236 F Supp 751, 1964 AMC 1856.

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.

Fact that vessel sails under Mexican flag and is owned entirely and exclusively by Mexican corporation whose stockholders are Mexican citizens is given great weight and supports conclusion that Jones Act is inapplicable. Jones v The Vessel Nair (1984, SD Cal) 586 F Supp 507, corrected (SD Cal) 612 F Supp 414.

57. American agent

Employment by foreign shipowner of single American agent is insufficient ground to require application of Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) to suit by Greek national, a permanent resident of United States, for injuries sustained on high seas aboard vessel owned by Panamanian corporation which was owned by Greek citizens. Frangiskatos v Konkar Maritime Enterprises, S.A. (1972, CA2 NY) 471 F2d 714.

Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) does not apply to Danish corporation in suit by Danish seaman for injuries sustained in American waters aboard Danish vessel, despite seaman's contention that principal stockholders of Danish corporation are also principle stockers of American corporation which acted as ship's general agent in New York, since circumstances of case do not warrant piercing of corporate identities which, even if done, would not render Danish corporation American corporation for purposes of Act. Hansen v A. S. D. S.S. V. Endborg (1957, DC NY) 155 F Supp 387.

Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) does not apply in case where Liberian registered vessel, which is owned and operated by Panamanian corporations and managed by British corporation with servicing agent in United States, has minimal contacts with United States where and no beneficial interest is located in United States, and thus Greek seaman's suit for injuries sustained on high seas does not fall within Act. Brillis v Chandris (U.S.A.), Inc. (1963, SD NY) 215 F Supp 520.

Although New York agent of Panamanian shipowning corporation is responsible for employing crew members and for general operation of vessel while it is in New York, Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) does not apply to Greek seaman's suit for injuries sustained on high seas aboard Liberian registered and Panamanian owned ship, since New York agent never acted as general manager of vessel and Panamanian owner exercised complete control over ship. Mihalinos v Liberian S.S. Trikala (1972, SD Cal) 342 F Supp 1237.

Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) will not apply to suit by Greek seaman for injuries sustained on high seas while working aboard Greek registered and Panamanian owned ship where seaman fails to show that American agent who managed vessel 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.

Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) is applicable to Honduran seaman's suit for injuries sustained on high seas aboard Liberian vessel owned by Greek corporation, despite foreign ownership and registration of vessel, since Greek corporation maintained 2 agents in United States with substantial operation and financial responsibilities. Gomez v Karavias U.S.A., Inc. (1975, SD NY) 401 F Supp 104.

Ownership of American corporation which acted as Norwegian shipowner's general agent is insufficient ground for application of Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) to suit by Philippine seaman for injuries sustained in Lake Michigan aboard Norwegian ship since identity between shipowner and agent is relevant to service of process upon agent but has no bearing on facts to be considered in determining applicability of Jones Act. Manlugon v A/S Facto (1976, SD NY) 419 F Supp 550.

Fact that American agent of Liberian registered and Panamanian owned vessel executed charter contracts with foreign corporations in New York is insufficient ground for application of Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) to suit by Greek seaman for injuries received in territorial waters of India. Hoidas v Orion & Global Chartering Co. (1977, SD NY) 440 F Supp 53.

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.

58. American business contacts

Resident 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.

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 was 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.

Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) is not applicable to Finish seaman's suit for injuries sustained in Holland aboard Norwegian vessel which was time-chartered by American corporations, since time-chartering by American corporation does not divest foreign ship of nationality. The Lynghaug (1941, DC Pa) 42 F Supp 713.

Jones Act (46 USCS Appx § 688) is applicable to suit by Greek seaman for injuries received on high seas aboard Liberian vessel despite finding that none of stock of any of defendant shipowning corporations is owned by Americans, since corporate structure of shipowner in context with United States indicates sufficiently substantial contacts to require application of Act. Mattes v National Hellenic American Line, S. A. (1977, SD NY) 427 F Supp 619.