River Deckhand — $1,050,000.00

Case Snapshot

• Client: River Deckhand
• Employer: [EMPLOYER]
• Vessel: [VESSEL], a 2,000-horsepower river towboat
• Tow: Six barges, including three loaded barges and three empty barges
• Incident Location: Krotz Springs Railroad Bridge at Mile 42 on the Atchafalaya River
• Incident Type: Bridge allision during a high-water nighttime transit
• Injuries: Large right-sided L5-S1 disc herniation and extrusion, nerve-root compression, right-leg radiculopathy, and probable permanent nerve damage
• Treatment: Lumbar microdiscectomy in October 2019 and lumbar fusion in June 2021
• Legal Issues: Jones Act negligence, vessel unseaworthiness, unsafe workplace, comparative fault, and maintenance and cure
• Case Result: $1,050,000.00

A Routine Watch Change Ended in a Serious Back Injury

A Louisiana deckhand suffered a severe lower-back injury when his towboat’s six-barge tow struck the Krotz Springs Railroad Bridge during a nighttime transit on the Atchafalaya River.

Our client was not steering the vessel or working on the exterior deck when the collision occurred. He was standing in the galley during a routine watch change when the pilot warned the crew over the radio that the tow was about to hit the bridge.

The warning came only moments before impact.

Our client wedged himself between a table and a deep freezer and held on. Seconds later, the tow struck a bridge piling with enough force to break two barges loose. The impact drove him into the galley fixtures and injured his lower back.

What began as significant back pain developed into a large L5-S1 disc extrusion, nerve-root compression, right-leg radiculopathy, a microdiscectomy, and eventually a lumbar fusion.

The company admitted that the collision happened. It nevertheless denied responsibility and argued that our client should be blamed for the way he reacted during the few seconds before impact.

Our investigation showed that the real danger began much earlier. It began with the decision to push a heavy six-barge tow toward a narrow bridge opening at night, during high water, without an adequate transit plan or assistance from a helper boat.

The Physical Demands of Working as a River Deckhand

River towboat work is physically demanding even when everything goes according to plan.

Deckhands work long watches on steel decks. They handle wire, ratchets, lines, and other heavy equipment. They may spend weeks away from home, sleep in short intervals, and work according to the vessel’s schedule rather than a normal day-and-night routine.

Our client had worked for [EMPLOYER] since 2017. He was building a career on Louisiana’s working rivers and moving toward a mate position.

The night of the incident, he was exactly where a deckhand was expected to be. He had no control over the vessel’s throttle, rudder, speed, tow configuration, or bridge approach.

He was inside the towboat when a navigation decision made in the wheelhouse exposed the crew to a violent impact.

A seaman does not have to be standing on the deck or handling equipment to suffer a compensable maritime injury. Negligent navigation can injure a worker anywhere aboard the vessel.

What Happened at the Krotz Springs Railroad Bridge

[VESSEL] was pushing six barges up the Atchafalaya River toward the Krotz Springs Railroad Bridge at Mile 42. Three barges were loaded, and three were empty.

The transit was attempted at night while the river was high and the current was moving quickly.

As the tow approached the bridge, it began to lose headway. That created a dangerous situation. When a large tow slows or stalls near a bridge in a swift current, the water can begin moving the entire flotilla sideways.

According to the incident evidence, the current set the tow toward the port side. The port stern barge struck a bridge piling, and the two stern barges broke away from the tow. The remaining four-barge unit became wedged near the bank and the west piling.

Another vessel was needed to assist in securing the barges.

The force required to break barges loose from a made-up tow helps explain what happened inside the towboat. Our client was holding onto fixed galley fixtures when the impact drove his body backward and injured his lower spine.

The pilot’s warning did not give him a meaningful opportunity to leave the area or prepare for the collision in a trained or organized way.

Why the Company’s “River Set” Defense Did Not Explain the Collision

The company argued that an unavoidable current “set” pushed the tow toward the bridge despite the pilot’s use of the throttle and rudder.

High water and strong currents, however, are not unexpected conditions on the Atchafalaya River. They are navigation hazards that a vessel’s captain and pilot must consider before committing a large tow to a restricted bridge passage.

The relevant questions were not limited to what the pilot did during the final seconds before impact. The investigation also had to examine:

• The height and speed of the river
• The size and configuration of the tow
• The vessel’s available horsepower
• The width and approach of the bridge opening
• The decision to proceed in darkness
• Whether other vessels had stopped because of the conditions
• Whether the tow should have waited for daylight
• Whether a helper boat should have been used

A foreseeable current condition does not automatically excuse an unsafe transit decision.

The company also argued that another deckhand braced himself without being injured and that our client failed to brace properly.

That argument shifted attention away from the decisions that placed the entire crew in danger. Our client did not cause the tow to lose headway. He did not select the bridge approach. He did not decide to proceed at night in high water.

He had only seconds to react to a collision created by decisions made elsewhere on the vessel.

How the Investigation Identified Preventable Navigation Failures

Our legal team obtained and reviewed the available vessel records, incident materials, navigation information, medical evidence, and testimony concerning the bridge transit.

Maritime attorney Tim Young and The Young Firm also worked with a navigation expert to evaluate the pilot’s and captain’s decisions.

The evidence supported several safer alternatives.

The tow could have waited until daylight. The vessel could have stopped and obtained assistance from a helper boat. The crew could have investigated why other vessels in the area had apparently stopped rather than continuing toward the bridge.

GPS information showed that other vessels had already stopped nearby. That fact was important because it suggested that other mariners may have recognized the danger presented by the river and bridge conditions.

The evidence also indicated that the pilot had been concerned that the towboat might stall before reaching the bridge and had called for the captain’s assistance.

The event the pilot feared was substantially similar to what ultimately happened: the tow lost headway near the bridge, the current took control of the flotilla, and the barges struck the structure.

Despite those warning signs, the transit continued.

The Lack of Collision Training Undermined the Comparative-Fault Defense

The company criticized the way our client braced before impact. That raised an obvious question: What collision training or procedure had the company given him?

The evidence did not show that deckhands had received a meaningful drill or clear instruction explaining what to do when a towboat was about to strike a bridge.

Our client was suddenly told that an impact was coming. He positioned himself between a table and a freezer and held on. There was no designated safe location, practiced emergency procedure, or meaningful time to respond.

A company should not create a dangerous situation and then fault an untrained worker for failing to react perfectly during the final seconds before a collision.

The comparative-fault dispute therefore had to be evaluated in context. The central issue was not whether our client could have moved differently. It was why the tow was placed in a position where the crew had to brace for a bridge impact at all.

How the Jones Act Applied to the Deckhand’s Injury

The Jones Act requires a maritime employer to use reasonable care to provide a seaman with a reasonably safe place to work.

An injured seaman must prove that the employer was negligent and that the negligence contributed to the injury. The Jones Act’s causation standard is favorable to seamen, but it does not eliminate the need to prove negligence.

In this case, the evidence supporting the Jones Act claim included the decision to attempt a high-water nighttime bridge transit with a heavy tow, the lack of an adequate transit plan, the pilot’s concern about losing headway, and the failure to use safer available alternatives.

Our client did not need to prove that the company’s conduct was the only cause of his injury. He needed to show that the employer’s negligence played a part in creating the dangerous event that damaged his back.

The fact that he was inside the galley did not change the employer’s duty. A safe workplace obligation extends throughout the vessel.

How Unseaworthiness Supported a Separate Maritime Claim

Unseaworthiness is a separate maritime claim from Jones Act negligence.

A vessel owner has a duty to provide a vessel, crew, equipment, and procedures that are reasonably fit for their intended purposes. A condition may support an unseaworthiness claim when the vessel’s equipment, staffing, crew, or operating procedures are not reasonably suitable for the work being performed.

In this case, the evidence raised questions about whether the vessel and crew were reasonably prepared for a high-water nighttime bridge transit.

Potential unseaworthy conditions included inadequate operating procedures, insufficient emergency training, an improperly prepared crew, or staffing and experience that were not reasonably suited to the conditions.

These issues required a close examination of the vessel’s actual operation rather than simply accepting the company’s description of the incident as an unavoidable river event.

Why Maintenance and Cure Mattered During the Recovery

Maintenance and cure is an important protection for injured seamen.

Maintenance generally refers to a basic daily living allowance. Cure generally covers reasonable and necessary medical treatment related to the seaman’s condition until maximum medical improvement is reached.

These benefits are separate from damages available through Jones Act negligence and unseaworthiness claims.

The company paid maintenance and cure while our client’s case progressed. It also authorized and paid for the lumbar fusion performed in June 2021.

Those payments did not constitute an admission of negligence or legal liability. They did, however, ensure that our client received substantial medical treatment while the parties continued to dispute the cause of the injury and responsibility for the collision.

Medical Evidence Linked the Collision to a New L5-S1 Injury

The company relied in part on our client’s earlier history of intermittent back symptoms.

A preexisting condition does not automatically defeat a Jones Act or maritime injury claim. An employer may still be responsible when a workplace incident causes a new injury or materially aggravates an earlier condition.

Our client had prior imaging that showed an older disc bulge. After the bridge collision, new imaging revealed a large right-sided L5-S1 extrusion with nerve-root compression.

His treating spine surgeon compared the earlier and later studies and concluded that the large post-incident herniation represented a new change that was, more likely than not, related to the collision.

The medical progression was also significant.

Our client first underwent a lumbar microdiscectomy in October 2019. His symptoms and spinal condition ultimately required a lumbar fusion in June 2021.

The comparison between the pre-incident and post-incident imaging helped distinguish the earlier condition from the serious injury that followed the towboat collision.

Why the Louisiana Location Was Important

This case arose from a bridge transit on the Atchafalaya River near Krotz Springs, Louisiana.

The location mattered because navigating Louisiana’s inland waterways requires an understanding of local currents, high-water conditions, bridge approaches, tow configurations, fleeting areas, and traffic patterns.

The investigation involved the Krotz Springs Railroad Bridge, nearby Old River and Lettsworth operations, and litigation in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Local maritime knowledge can help an attorney identify the right questions early in the case:

• Was the bridge passage appropriate for the tow and river conditions?
• Should the vessel have waited for daylight?
• Why had nearby vessels stopped?
• Was a helper boat available or advisable?
• Did the pilot have enough horsepower and headway to control the tow?
• Were the crew and vessel reasonably prepared for the transit?

These questions can determine whether an incident was truly unavoidable or the result of preventable operational decisions.

Lessons for Injured Deckhands and Other Seamen

This case illustrates several important principles for maritime workers.

You can have a Jones Act claim even if you were injured inside the vessel

Our client was in the galley and had no role in navigation. The company’s operating decisions still exposed him to the impact.

A last-second warning does not erase an earlier unsafe decision

A warning issued moments before a collision does not excuse the choices that placed the vessel and crew in danger.

The company may try to blame the way you reacted

Maritime employers frequently raise comparative-fault defenses. Those allegations must be considered alongside the training, procedures, equipment, and reaction time the company actually provided.

A prior back condition does not automatically prevent recovery

Comparative imaging and medical testimony may show that an incident caused a new injury or materially worsened an existing condition.

Medical documentation matters

Prompt reporting, consistent treatment, accurate symptom descriptions, imaging studies, and physician testimony can help establish how an injury developed.

Navigation evidence can be critical

GPS records, vessel logs, incident reports, weather and river information, witness testimony, and expert analysis may reveal that the danger began long before the moment of impact.

Speak With a Jones Act Deckhand Back Injury Lawyer

A serious towboat or barge accident can affect a deckhand’s ability to work, support a family, and return to the physically demanding career he built on the water.

The Young Firm represents injured seamen in Jones Act, unseaworthiness, and maintenance-and-cure claims involving towboats, barges, inland rivers, offshore vessels, and other maritime workplaces.

Our attorneys investigate the complete chain of events. That includes the decisions made in the wheelhouse, the vessel’s operating procedures, navigation records, crew training, medical evidence, and the defenses raised by the employer.

If you are a deckhand, mate, tankerman, or other maritime worker who suffered a serious back injury, you do not have to evaluate these legal issues alone.

Call The Young Firm for a free and confidential consultation. There is no attorney’s fee unless we recover compensation for you.

Let us examine what happened—from the decision that placed the vessel in danger to the injury that changed your life.