Deckhand — $300,000.00

Case Snapshot

This Jones Act ankle injury case arose from a towing-vessel mooring accident at the LOOP Dock near Port Fourchon and Galliano, Louisiana. A 28-year-old deckhand suffered a severe bimalleolar ankle fracture after a 2-inch nylon bowline fell short of the dock, entered the vessel’s running starboard Voith drive, and snapped back into his right leg with enormous force.

• Client: Deckhand
• Residence: Louisiana Gulf Coast region
• Worksite: LOOP Dock, Port Fourchon / Galliano, Lafourche Parish, Louisiana
• Incident Type: Mooring-line whip-back injury during towing-vessel docking operation
• Injuries: Severe right ankle bimalleolar fracture; secondary low-back complaints; depression, anxiety, and opioid misuse following the injury
• Surgery: Open reduction internal fixation with hardware implantation on May 1, 2018; hardware-removal surgery on July 31, 2019
• Key Legal Issues: Jones Act negligence; vessel unseaworthiness; maintenance and cure; failure to require heaving-line use; inadequate Job Safety and Environmental Analysis; comparative-fault defense
• Case Result: $300,000.00

Case Page Summary

A 28-year-old deckhand working aboard a towing vessel at the LOOP Dock near Port Fourchon suffered a severe ankle fracture when a 2-inch nylon bowline fell short of the dock, entered the vessel’s running starboard Voith drive, and whipped back into his right leg.

Heaving lines were available on the vessel, but they were not used. The company’s own internal investigation later found that the pre-job safety analysis was inadequate. The Young Firm pursued claims against the employer and vessel owner under the Jones Act, the doctrine of unseaworthiness, and maintenance and cure while pushing back against a defense that tried to blame the injured deckhand for the accident.

How the Port Fourchon Mooring Accident Happened

There is nothing routine about tying up a towing vessel. Not when you are the deckhand at the bow, holding a heavy nylon line, watching the dock, and waiting for the right moment to throw. Every mooring operation depends on crew communication, vessel position, machinery, timing, and physics. When one of those elements fails, the energy stored inside a tensioned line has to go somewhere.

On April 9, 2018, that energy went directly into our client’s right ankle.

He was 28 years old and had worked as a deckhand and deck watch for his employer since August 2014. He had built his livelihood on the water. He knew the Louisiana Gulf Coast. He showed up every day to do the job right.

At approximately 3:15 p.m., his towing vessel was tying up starboard side to the LOOP Dock in the Port Fourchon and Galliano area of Lafourche Parish. The stern line was already fast. He and the crew moved forward to handle the bow lines. He was assigned the last of the three lines: the forward bowline.

He threw the 2-inch nylon bowline toward the dock. The line did not make it. It fell short and dropped into the water between the hull and the dock face.

Within seconds, the running starboard Voith drive pulled the line in.

Once the Voith drive caught the line, there was no realistic way for a deckhand to pull it back. The line went taut almost instantly. The onboard end of the bowline whipped back with the stored force of a heavily tensioned line and struck our client directly in the right leg and ankle.

He tried to jump clear. He heard the line hit the dock. He heard it going into the water. He reacted. But the machinery and physics moved faster than a person could reasonably respond.

The impact caused a bimalleolar ankle fracture, meaning both sides of the ankle joint were broken. This was not a sprain. It was not a minor crack. It was the kind of injury that required surgery, implanted hardware, rehabilitation, and later another operation to remove the hardware.

How a Heaving Line Could Have Prevented the Injury

One piece of equipment could have changed the entire outcome: a heaving line.

A heaving line is a lighter throwing line connected to a heavier mooring line. It is often weighted at the end with a monkey’s fist or similar knot. It gives the deckhand more distance, control, and accuracy when throwing a mooring line to dock personnel, especially when the vessel is not yet pressed tight against the dock.

Heaving lines were familiar maritime equipment. They were available aboard the vessel that day. But they were not attached to the bowline our client was instructed to handle.

That mattered.

Without the heaving line, the bowline fell short. Because the rope was nylon, it sank into the water. Because the propulsion system was still running, the Voith drive was able to ingest the line. Once the drive caught the line, the whip-back happened almost immediately.

After the accident, the company modified its Job Safety and Environmental Analysis, or JSEA, to require heaving-line use. The crew began using them. Crew members also suggested that all mooring lines carry heaving lines and that floating poly rope be used instead of nylon rope that sinks.

Those were not abstract safety suggestions. They addressed the exact sequence that injured our client.

The procedure changed only after a 28-year-old deckhand had paid the price with his ankle, his maritime career, and parts of his life that are harder to measure in court.

How the Company Tried to Blame the Deckhand

The employer and vessel owner did not simply accept responsibility. Instead, they tried to shift the blame onto the injured deckhand.

Their defense marine expert argued that the vessel was not yet firmly pressed against the LOOP Dock when the line was thrown. The implication was that our client threw too early and created the danger himself.

They argued that he knew mooring lines were not supposed to enter the water. They claimed he could not clearly see the dock-side crewmember when he made the throw. Their position, reduced to its plainest terms, was that the deckhand had made the mistake and should bear most of the responsibility.

The defense also contested the full scope of his injuries. They disputed the connection between the accident and his later depression, anxiety, and misuse of prescription pain medication after surgery. They pointed to what they characterized as a preexisting psychological and addiction history and argued that the mental-health consequences were not caused by the vessel accident.

They also hired a vocational expert who claimed he could return to land-based employment and earn close to what he had made on the water. That argument was designed to reduce or eliminate his wage-loss and diminished-earning-capacity claims.

It was a layered defense. Every layer had the same purpose: make the injured deckhand appear responsible and minimize what the accident had taken from him.

What Our Maritime Investigation Uncovered

When our legal team dug into the case, the evidence told a very different story.

The Young Firm obtained and reviewed incident forms, near-miss reports, JSEA records, the vessel captain’s deposition, and accounts from the able-bodied seaman who was on deck that day. The company’s own records showed that its pre-job safety process had been inadequate. Its internal review used the word “complacency.”

The captain’s testimony also confirmed that heaving-line use had been left to each seaman’s discretion. It was not required. It was not consistently mandated. It was not incorporated into a clear vessel-wide procedure for this docking operation.

That is not a complete safety system. That is leaving a known mooring hazard to individual judgment during a fast-moving operation beside running propulsion equipment.

Our maritime safety expert connected the missing procedure directly to the accident. If a heaving line had been attached to the bowline, the line likely would have had enough weight and reach to land on the dock. If the line had reached the dock, the Voith drive would not have ingested it. If the Voith drive had not ingested it, the whip-back injury could have been avoided.

The company’s post-accident response also mattered. It revised the JSEA. It made heaving lines mandatory. The crew began using them. These changes helped show how directly the revised procedures addressed the danger that had been left uncontrolled before the accident.

The defense’s comparative-fault argument had another problem: no witness who accused our client of throwing early had clearly seen the throw and accounted for the bow’s precise position at that moment. Our client’s testimony was direct. He saw the dock-side crewmember. He stepped back from the bulwark. He threw the line. He heard it hit the dock and then heard it enter the water.

Once the Voith drive caught the line, the reaction window was measured in fractions of a second. He tried to jump clear. He did what a deckhand could reasonably do in the narrow window available to him.

The Jones Act Negligence Claim

Jones Act negligence was the foundation of this case.

Under the Jones Act, a maritime employer owes its seamen a duty to use reasonable care to provide a safe place to work. That duty includes competent supervision, proper equipment, safe procedures, adequate training, and meaningful job-safety planning.

This duty is not a paperwork formality. It applies directly to how a crew prepares for and performs a mooring operation.

In this case, the evidence supported allegations that the employer failed to require available heaving lines, failed to conduct an adequate pre-job safety analysis, failed to address the known danger of line ingestion near a running Voith drive, and left a critical safety decision to individual crew members.

That is exactly the kind of preventable safety failure the Jones Act is designed to address.

Under the Jones Act’s causation standard, an injured seaman may recover when the employer’s negligence played any part, even the slightest part, in producing the injury. Here, the missing heaving-line requirement, inadequate JSEA, and unsafe line-handling procedure all supported the claim that the employer’s negligence contributed to the accident.

The Vessel Unseaworthiness Claim

The unseaworthiness claim focused on whether the vessel, its equipment, crew, and methods of operation were reasonably fit for their intended maritime purpose.

A vessel owner has a duty to provide a vessel that is reasonably fit for the work the crew is expected to perform. That does not mean the vessel must be accident-proof. But it does mean the vessel cannot be operated with unsafe equipment, unsafe procedures, or an unsafe method of work that exposes seamen to avoidable injury.

Our allegations included the lack of a required heaving-line procedure, inadequate preparation for the known line-ingestion hazard, and an unsafe method of conducting the docking operation near a running Voith drive.

A deficient mooring procedure can make a vessel unsafe for its intended work. In this case, the vessel was being used for a docking operation in a high-risk maritime environment, yet the crew was not required to use the equipment that could have helped keep the bowline out of the propulsion system.

The Maintenance-and-Cure Claim

Maintenance and cure was another important part of the case.

Maintenance is the daily living allowance owed to an injured seaman while he recovers. Cure includes reasonable and necessary medical treatment until the seaman reaches maximum medical improvement.

Our client underwent open reduction internal fixation surgery in May 2018. Surgeons implanted hardware to stabilize his ankle. He then went through physical therapy, chiropractic treatment, continuing care, and later hardware-removal surgery in July 2019.

For an injured deckhand, maintenance and cure is not optional support. It is one of the oldest protections in maritime law. Any unreasonable refusal, delay, or underpayment can create additional exposure depending on the employer’s conduct and the facts of the case.

The Young Firm pursued the medical care, financial support, and maritime remedies available to him throughout his recovery.

Why Port Fourchon and Lafourche Parish Mattered

The location of this case mattered.

Port Fourchon is one of the most important offshore-service hubs on the Gulf Coast. The LOOP Dock sits in the Fourchon and Galliano area of Lafourche Parish, where towing vessels, supply boats, tankermen, deckhands, and offshore-support crews operate under real docking pressures.

This is not a generic workplace. It is a demanding maritime environment where heavy lines, active propulsion equipment, shifting vessel positions, and close-quarters dock operations can create serious danger in seconds.

The vessel involved in this case operated in the Grand Isle platform area, within the heart of Louisiana Gulf Coast maritime commerce. The lawsuit proceeded in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana in New Orleans, a federal venue with deep experience in Jones Act and general maritime-law cases.

Understanding Port Fourchon, Galliano, Lafourche Parish, Grand Isle, Gulf Coast vessel operations, and the Eastern District of Louisiana can materially affect how a maritime injury case is investigated and presented.

At The Young Firm, we know these docks, these courts, and this law. We know how Gulf Coast maritime employers operate their vessels, and we know how to hold them accountable when unsafe procedures injure the workers who keep those vessels moving.

Key Lessons for Injured Maritime Workers

A Heaving Line Is Essential Safety Equipment

If a vessel conducts mooring operations but does not routinely require heaving lines through its JSEA or operating procedures, the employer may be exposing deckhands to an avoidable line-handling hazard.

Seamen have the right to report unsafe procedures. When missing equipment or missing safety requirements contribute to an injury, that failure may support a Jones Act claim.

An Inadequate JSEA Can Support Liability

A pre-job safety meeting should address the actual hazards the crew is about to face. If the JSEA does not address propulsion systems, line-ingestion risks, vessel position, heaving-line use, escape zones, or crew communication, the omission may become important evidence.

Injured seamen should remember what was discussed, who attended, and which hazards were left out.

Voith Drives Can Create Catastrophic Line Hazards

A mooring line entering the water near a running Voith drive, thruster, tractor-style propulsion unit, or conventional propeller can become deadly within seconds. Maritime employers must have clear procedures, trained crews, and effective communication protocols to control that danger.

Comparative Fault Is a Defense Strategy

Maritime employers often argue that an injured seaman caused or contributed to his own injury. That allegation should be tested against witness testimony, vessel position, line configuration, timing, propulsion status, written procedures, expert analysis, and the practical reaction time available to the worker.

An injured deckhand should not accept a blame-shifting narrative created by people who were not standing in his position when the line came under tension.

Damages Go Beyond the Broken Bone

A Jones Act ankle injury claim may include far more than the initial fracture. Depending on the evidence, recoverable damages may include surgery, implanted hardware, hardware removal, future medical care, rehabilitation, pain, disability, lost wages, diminished earning capacity, depression, anxiety, and other accident-related losses.

A maritime lawyer should investigate the complete physical, psychological, vocational, and financial impact of the accident.

About The Young Firm

The Young Firm, led by maritime attorney Tim Young, represents injured seamen and offshore workers across the Louisiana Gulf Coast. The firm handles Jones Act negligence, vessel unseaworthiness, and maintenance-and-cure claims for deckhands, tugboat crews, tankermen, supply-vessel workers, and other maritime employees.

We represent workers from Port Fourchon and Galliano to Grand Isle, New Orleans, and communities throughout the Gulf Coast.

We do not charge attorney’s fees unless we recover compensation for you. We can come to you. And we fight for injured maritime workers whose employers failed to provide safe equipment, proper training, and safe operating procedures.

If you or someone you love was injured in a mooring operation, docking accident, line-handling incident, or other maritime accident in Louisiana, early legal involvement can help preserve vessel records, witness testimony, JSEA documents, maintenance-and-cure records, and physical evidence.

Call us today to talk about what happened and what you can do next.

When you need a Jones Act ankle injury lawyer who knows these docks, these courts, and this law, contact The Young Firm.