Chief Engineer — $850,000.00

Case Snapshot

Client

Chief engineer aboard a U.S.-flag interisland ocean tug

Residence

Hawaii

Worksite

Aboard [VESSEL] in the Alenuihaha Channel on the return voyage from Kawaihae to Honolulu

Incident Type

Thrown from an upper bunk during heavy beam-sea rolling while off-watch and asleep

Injuries

Cervical spine fracture or injury with left upper-extremity radiculopathy, including pain, numbness, tingling, and weakness; left shoulder injury

Surgery

Three-level cervical fusion and spinal fluid leak repair

Key Legal Issues

Jones Act negligence involving unsafe navigation and failure to warn sleeping crew; unseaworthiness involving an inadequate upper-bunk rail and no bunk-board restraint; maintenance and cure; disputed medical causation; failure-to-mitigate defense

Case Result

$850,000.00

Case Summary

A veteran chief engineer suffered serious cervical spine and shoulder injuries after being thrown from his assigned upper bunk while an interisland tug crossed Hawaii’s Alenuihaha Channel. He was off-watch and asleep when heavy seas caused the vessel to roll severely, launching him from the berth and onto the steel deck approximately five feet below.

The maritime employer argued that the captain navigated prudently, the bunk complied with applicable standards, and the engineer’s cervical surgery would have become necessary even without the fall. Our investigation showed a different picture. Vessel records, physical measurements, expert analysis, witness accounts, and medical testimony supported claims involving unsafe navigation, failure to warn the sleeping crew, and unseaworthy sleeping accommodations.

A Seaman Can Have a Jones Act Claim Even While Sleeping

There is a particular kind of cruelty in being injured at rest.

Our client was not working through a long shift on deck. He was not repairing machinery in the engine room during heavy weather. He was asleep, off-watch, in the bunk he had been assigned to use.

Then the vessel rolled hard.

He woke to the sensation of being airborne before landing on his neck and left shoulder on the steel deck below.

A seaman does not have to be performing a dangerous task at the moment of an injury to have a valid maritime claim. An off-watch crew member remains in the service of the vessel. The maritime employer must continue to exercise reasonable care, and the vessel owner must provide sleeping accommodations reasonably fit for their intended use while the vessel is underway.

Our client had worked for the company since 2006. He was 57 years old at the time of the incident and had passed a physical examination less than three weeks earlier. He had been cleared to return to full maritime duty.

He also knew the Honolulu-to-Kawaihae towing route well. What he could not control was how the vessel would be navigated when it encountered the demanding sea conditions for which the Alenuihaha Channel is known.

What Happened During the Alenuihaha Channel Transit

The tug departed Honolulu Harbor on New Year’s Day in 2019. It reached Kawaihae Harbor early the next morning, completed its work, and began the return voyage toward Honolulu with a barge in tow astern.

Our client was off-watch and sleeping in the upper bunk of the forward-most stateroom on the main-deck level.

At approximately 10:10 a.m. on January 2, the vessel was crossing the Alenuihaha Channel when its rolling intensified. A maritime operations expert later described conditions consistent with force 6 weather, including northeast winds of approximately 25 knots and seas reaching eight feet.

The vessel’s speed and approximate 314-degree heading placed those seas nearly on the beam. For a 123-foot tug towing a barge, this orientation created a substantial rolling hazard.

Our client received no alarm, bridge announcement, or warning before the severe roll. He was awakened only when the vessel’s motion threw him from the bunk.

Later that morning, crew members reported that pots, containers, and other objects had been thrown from shelves in the galley during the same rolling event. This evidence was important because it independently demonstrated the severity of the vessel’s movement.

The same forces that scattered objects across the galley threw a sleeping chief engineer from an elevated berth. His injuries were serious enough to require a United States Coast Guard medevac from the tug.

The Upper Bunk Provided Inadequate Fall Protection

The physical condition of the berth became a central issue in the unseaworthiness claim.

The upper-bunk guard rail measured less than approximately 4.5 inches above the relevant sleeping surface. The distance from the top of the mattress to the deck was approximately 55 inches.

There was no bunk board and no meaningful restraint system capable of protecting a sleeping crew member during heavy rolling.

The maritime employer retained a berth-design expert who argued that the bunk complied with applicable standards and that no regulation expressly required an additional board or restraint device.

Regulatory compliance, however, does not necessarily resolve whether a vessel or its equipment was reasonably fit for its intended purpose. The central question was whether the sleeping accommodation provided reasonable protection for a crew member using an upper bunk aboard a working tug that regularly encountered rough interisland waters.

Measurements and photographs allowed the legal team and the marine design expert to show the problem in practical terms. A rail extending only a few inches above the sleeping surface offered little protection against a severe roll, particularly when the deck was roughly five feet below.

The Employer’s Defenses

The company contested nearly every major part of the claim.

First, it argued that the captain exercised sound seamanship and that the vessel’s heading and speed were reasonable under the conditions.

Second, it claimed that the bunk was safe because no one had previously complained about it or reported a similar injury. The absence of an earlier accident, however, did not necessarily establish that the berth was reasonably safe for foreseeable rough-water operations.

Third, the employer relied heavily on the engineer’s pre-existing cervical degeneration. It argued that his neck surgery would eventually have become necessary even if the bunk fall had never occurred.

This is a common causation defense in maritime injury litigation. A pre-existing condition does not automatically defeat a Jones Act claim. An employer may still be responsible when a vessel incident aggravates, accelerates, or combines with an underlying condition to produce disabling symptoms or the need for surgery.

Finally, the defense argued that the chief engineer retained the ability to perform sedentary work, shoreside administrative duties, or light-duty maritime employment. It relied on an independent medical examination and contended that he had not made sufficient efforts to obtain alternative employment.

How the Evidence Supported the Claim

Our investigation brought together vessel records, navigation evidence, expert analysis, physical measurements, witness statements, medical testimony, and economic evidence.

The navigational evidence showed that the tug’s heading and speed placed substantial seas on or near its beam, increasing the vessel’s tendency to roll. A prudent master confronting those conditions had several potential options, including reducing speed, altering course, delaying the transit, or warning off-watch crew members before entering the most hazardous portion of the crossing.

The evidence indicated that the sleeping crew received no meaningful warning before the incident.

The galley disruption provided additional corroboration. Pots and containers did not leave shelves without substantial vessel movement. Their displacement supported the chief engineer’s account and challenged the defense position that the tug’s motion was routine or reasonably controlled.

The berth evidence was equally important. The rail measurement, fall distance, and absence of a bunk board allowed the marine design expert to evaluate whether the accommodation offered adequate protection for a sleeping seaman under foreseeable operating conditions.

On the medical side, the treating orthopedic surgeon concluded that the January 2019 fall substantially caused or contributed to the worsening symptoms and the need for a three-level cervical fusion.

That opinion was supported by the timing of the symptoms and the fact that the engineer had been cleared for full duty shortly before the incident. The recent medical clearance did not eliminate evidence of degeneration, but it helped demonstrate that he had been capable of performing demanding maritime work before the fall.

Jones Act Negligence and Unsafe Navigation

The Jones Act allows qualifying seamen to pursue compensation when an employer’s negligence contributes to an injury.

A maritime employer’s duty to exercise reasonable care does not end when a crew member goes off-watch. Unsafe navigation, failure to warn sleeping crew members of anticipated heavy rolling, and continuing through hazardous conditions without reasonable adjustments may support a Jones Act negligence claim.

In this case, the negligence allegations included:

• Navigating with heavy seas on or near the vessel’s beam
• Failing to reduce speed or alter course
• Failing to delay the crossing despite rough conditions
• Failing to warn sleeping crew members about anticipated rolling
• Assigning the engineer to an upper bunk without adequate fall protection

The claim did not depend on proving that the employer intended to cause harm. The issue was whether negligent conduct played a part in producing the injury.

Unseaworthiness and Unsafe Sleeping Accommodations

Unseaworthiness is a separate claim under general maritime law.

A vessel owner must provide a vessel, its equipment, and its appurtenances in a condition reasonably fit for their intended purposes. That duty extends to sleeping accommodations used by crew members while the vessel is underway.

An upper berth may be unseaworthy when it lacks adequate protection against foreseeable vessel movement. Relevant evidence can include the height of the guard rail, the distance to the deck, the presence or absence of a bunk board, the vessel’s normal routes, and the sea conditions the vessel can reasonably be expected to encounter.

Here, the low rail, substantial fall distance, absence of a restraint system, and known rough-water route supported the argument that the berth was not reasonably fit to protect a sleeping mariner.

Maintenance and Cure Did Not End the Case

Maintenance and cure was paid in full.

Maintenance and cure generally provides medical treatment and basic living support while an injured seaman recovers. It is an important maritime remedy, but it is not the same as full compensation for Jones Act negligence or unseaworthiness.

Even when maintenance and cure is paid, an injured seaman may still pursue damages for:

• Past and future lost wages
• Diminished earning capacity
• Pain and suffering
• Physical disability
• Emotional distress
• Loss of enjoyment of life
• Other injury-related losses

Our client earned approximately $133,000 per year as a chief engineer. Following a three-level cervical fusion, permanent restrictions, and a treating physician’s opinion that he could not perform even sedentary work, the economic expert’s wage-loss calculation reached seven figures.

Those losses reflected more than a paycheck. The injury threatened a maritime career the engineer had spent decades building.

Why the Hawaii Location Mattered

The Alenuihaha Channel separates Maui from the Island of Hawaii and is known among interisland mariners for strong trade winds, accelerated seas, and demanding crossing conditions.

Its geography and weather patterns were central to evaluating whether the tug was navigated prudently.

A maritime injury case arising in Hawaiian waters may require careful analysis of the vessel’s route, heading, speed, tow configuration, weather conditions, and the practices of the interisland trade. The Honolulu-to-Kawaihae route is not an abstract line on a chart. It involves real operational decisions and known environmental risks.

The employer, vessel officers, and experienced mariners understood that the channel could produce severe rolling. That knowledge made the failure to adjust the transit or warn the sleeping crew particularly important.

Key Takeaways for Injured Seamen

You may have a claim even if you were asleep

A seaman injured while resting or sleeping may still have valid Jones Act and unseaworthiness claims. Being off-watch does not eliminate the employer’s duty to exercise reasonable care.

Unsafe navigation can cause injuries below deck

Navigation decisions affect everyone aboard a vessel, including crew members in sleeping quarters. Heading, speed, weather, tow configuration, and warnings to the crew may all become important evidence.

An unsafe bunk can make a vessel unseaworthy

A low rail, missing bunk board, inadequate restraint system, or excessive fall distance may support an unseaworthiness claim when the berth is not reasonably fit for use at sea.

Pre-existing degeneration does not automatically defeat causation

An injured seaman may recover when a vessel incident aggravates or accelerates an underlying condition. Treating-physician testimony and the worker’s medical and employment history can be critical.

Maintenance and cure is not full compensation

Payment of medical expenses and daily maintenance does not necessarily resolve separate claims for lost wages, diminished earning capacity, pain, suffering, and disability.

Preserve evidence quickly

Important evidence can disappear or change. Vessel logs, electronic navigation data, weather information, bunk measurements, photographs, witness accounts, and medical records should be preserved as early as possible.

About The Young Firm

The Young Firm represents injured seamen and maritime workers in Jones Act, unseaworthiness, and maintenance-and-cure claims. We represent deckhands, engineers, tankermen, captains, and other crew members—not shipping companies, vessel owners, or maritime employers.

Maritime attorney Tim Young and our legal team investigate the vessel operations, physical conditions, medical evidence, and economic losses behind serious maritime injuries.

An injury aboard a vessel can take more than a person’s health. It can take a career, financial stability, independence, and the ability to provide for a family.

Speak with us today. There is no charge for the call, and we may be able to help get your life back on track.

Jones Act claims are subject to legal deadlines, and important evidence can disappear quickly. There is no attorney’s fee unless we recover compensation for you.

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