Contract Deckhand — $4,800,000.00

Case Snapshot

A contract deckhand working on a dredging project in the Sabine Pass Waterway suffered a devastating left-foot crush injury while clearing debris from a dredge cutterhead. The evidence showed that a substitute support vessel with a different bow configuration moved into the work zone without adequate warning, while the company failed to conduct a meaningful task-specific safety review for the changed setup.

• Client: Contract Deckhand
• Worksite: Sabine River and Sabine Pass Waterway channel-maintenance project near the U.S. Coast Guard dock
• Incident Type: Left-foot crush and pinch injury between a moving support vessel and dredge cutterhead during debris-removal work
• Injuries: Crush injury and chip-bone injury to the left foot and ankle; tarsal tunnel syndrome; Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Type I; chronic pain syndrome; dysesthesias; swelling; numbness; tingling; hypersensitivity; weakness; and secondary low-back and left-hip pain
• Key Legal Issues: Jones Act negligence, unseaworthiness, unsafe vessel positioning, inadequate job-safety planning, and failure to warn a worker in a hidden pinch zone
• Case Result: $4,800,000.00

A Serious Sabine Pass Dredge Injury

There is nothing routine about working on the front of a cutterhead dredge over an active channel.

A cutterhead is the rotating assembly at the front of a suction dredge. It breaks up material on the riverbed so sediment can be removed through the dredging system. But the cutterhead can also catch debris such as rope, wire, tires, and other heavy obstructions. When that happens, someone has to go out to the machinery and pull the obstruction free by hand.

That is the work our client was doing when his life changed.

He had spent months on the project and was familiar with the demanding rotation common in Gulf Coast maritime work. On a June afternoon in 2015, he was sent to clear a water-filled tire lodged in the cutterhead. To do that, he had to position himself belly-down over the equipment and work toward the jam by hand.

While he was focused on the cutterhead, a nearby support vessel moved into the narrow space behind him.

He could not see it coming. He was facing the machinery.

His left foot and ankle were trapped and crushed between the moving vessel and the cutterhead structure.

What the company initially treated as a short-term injury became a years-long medical and legal battle. The crush injury later developed into Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Type I, leaving this maritime worker in chronic pain and unable to return to the career he had built.

How the Cutterhead Accident Happened

The accident happened during a debris-removal operation that required close coordination between the deckhand on the cutterhead and the operator of the support vessel nearby.

That coordination broke down.

During this type of work, the support vessel must maintain a controlled and predictable position alongside the dredge. The deckhand clearing debris depends on the vessel operator to hold safe clearance and provide a warning before any movement into the work zone. That is especially important where current, channel conditions, and vessel positioning can change quickly.

On the day of the incident, the crew was not using its usual support vessel.

Instead, a substitute boat was used. The replacement vessel had a different bow profile than the boat the crew normally worked around. That difference mattered. It changed the spacing, clearance pattern, and pinch-point geometry near the cutterhead.

The crew did not receive an adequate safety discussion about that changed setup before the task began.

As our client worked to free the heavy tire, he shifted his foot for leverage. That movement placed his left foot in the pinch zone between the hull and the cutterhead structure. When the vessel moved closer, his foot and ankle were crushed.

The company later tried to frame the incident as a simple positioning error by an experienced worker.

The evidence told a different story.

What Went Wrong

Three connected failures explained why this happened.

1. The Support Vessel Was Not Held at a Safe Distance

The deckhand working over the cutterhead had limited visibility and no practical way to monitor the vessel behind him while pulling debris from the machinery. The support-vessel operator was the person best positioned to observe the gap, control the vessel, and maintain safe separation.

The vessel was not kept far enough away.

No effective warning was given before it moved into the work zone.

2. The Job Safety Analysis Did Not Match the Actual Task

The company’s documentation suggested that a Job Safety Analysis had been completed. But a meaningful safety review has to address the actual work, the actual equipment, and the actual hazards present that day.

A generic form or routine checkbox is not enough.

The evidence supported the conclusion that there was no adequate task-specific JSA for the debris-removal operation performed with the substitute support vessel. Even if a general JSA existed elsewhere, it did not adequately address the changed pinch-point hazard created by the different bow geometry.

That mattered because a different vessel shape creates a different danger zone.

3. The Substitute Vessel Introduced a New Hazard

Maritime crews rely heavily on familiarity with equipment. When a company swaps out one support boat for another in a close-quarters operation, the change should be evaluated before work starts.

Here, the substitute vessel altered how the hull sat relative to the cutterhead. That should have triggered a new hazard assessment and a direct conversation with the crew about clearance, positioning, and warning procedures.

That did not happen.

Why the Company Tried to Blame the Deckhand

The defense argued that our client was experienced, understood the general hazards of cutterhead work, and chose his own body position. In other words, the company tried to shift responsibility to the injured worker.

That is a common defense in maritime injury cases.

It ignores who controlled the vessel, who selected the equipment, who organized the work, and who failed to address the risks created by the changed setup.

A deckhand lying over the front of a cutterhead cannot safely do the assigned task and also keep constant watch on a support vessel moving behind him. The operator controlling that vessel has the duty to maintain safe clearance and provide warning before movement.

Responsibility for safe vessel positioning and adequate pre-task planning rested with the company, not with the worker who was carrying out the assigned job.

How the Jones Act Applied

This case raised classic issues under the Jones Act and general maritime law.

Under the Jones Act, a maritime employer must use reasonable care to provide seamen with a reasonably safe place to work. That duty can include safe work methods, proper supervision, competent vessel operation, appropriate equipment, and adequate hazard planning.

In this case, the evidence supported a Jones Act negligence claim because the company’s failures played a role in causing the injury. Those failures included unsafe vessel positioning, failure to warn, and failure to address the changed equipment configuration before sending a worker into a known pinch zone.

Jones Act causation is favorable to injured seamen. A worker does not have to prove that the employer’s negligence was the only cause of the injury. If employer negligence played any part in producing the harm, that can support liability.

That made the company’s operational decisions central to the case.

Why Unseaworthiness Was Also Important

The case also involved a claim for unseaworthiness.

Unseaworthiness is different from Jones Act negligence. A vessel may be unseaworthy when its equipment, appurtenances, crew, or assigned work method is not reasonably fit for its intended purpose.

Here, the use of a substitute support vessel in a tight cutterhead operation without adequately addressing the change in bow geometry supported the argument that the working arrangement itself was not reasonably safe.

That theory allowed the case to focus not only on the moment of impact, but on the larger operating system that made the impact possible.

How the Injury Became a Long-Term Disabling Condition

The initial injury was serious from the start. He was transported ashore the same day and initially diagnosed with a crushing injury and chipped bone in the left foot.

But the full medical picture grew much worse.

Over time, the injury developed into Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Type I, along with tarsal tunnel syndrome, chronic pain syndrome, dysesthesias, swelling, numbness, tingling, hypersensitivity, and weakness. He also suffered secondary low-back and left-hip pain.

His treatment was extensive and difficult. He wore a walking cast, underwent physical therapy, and received a lumbar sympathetic block that did not provide relief. He later attempted a spinal cord stimulator trial, but it worsened his symptoms, including low-back pain and muscle spasms. He declined permanent implantation.

Years after the incident, he remained significantly limited.

He could not wear a regular fitted shoe on his left foot. He had ongoing pain and instability. He could not safely perform climbing, crawling, heavy lifting, or the physical labor required for maritime deck work.

This was not an injury that merely interrupted a job.

It ended his maritime working life.

The Economic Damage Was Substantial

The injury’s financial consequences went far beyond missed paychecks immediately after the accident.

Economic experts evaluated past wage loss, future wage loss, lost earning capacity, lost per-diem income, and future medical and pain-management needs. A life care plan projected future costs exceeding $1.8 million.

That kind of analysis is important in serious maritime injury cases because a worker’s losses often extend far beyond base wages. For many seamen, the real economic damage includes reduced future employability, lost work capacity, lost benefits, long-term treatment, and the burden of living with chronic pain for years.

In a case like this, those losses had to be documented in full.

Why the Sabine Pass Location Mattered

This accident happened in the Sabine Pass and Sabine River corridor, part of the active Texas-Louisiana maritime region serving Port Arthur, Beaumont, and nearby industrial waterways.

That context mattered.

These are real working waterways shaped by current, vessel traffic, dredging activity, and demanding operating conditions. Understanding how cutterhead dredging works in this corridor, how a support vessel should be positioned, and how a changed bow profile can alter a pinch zone is not abstract. It is part of understanding how the accident happened.

Regional maritime knowledge helped frame both the liability issues and the practical realities of the work.

What Other Maritime Workers Can Learn From This Case

This case offers several important lessons for deckhands, dredge workers, and other maritime employees.

A substitute vessel is not a neutral replacement.If a different boat changes the work geometry, that change should be evaluated before the task begins.

A worker cannot guard against a hazard he cannot see.If a deckhand is facing the cutterhead, the operator controlling the nearby vessel has to maintain safe clearance and give warning.

A checklist is not the same as a real safety analysis.A valid JSA must address the specific task, the actual vessel setup, and the real hazards present that day.

CRPS can be life-changing.When a crush injury develops into chronic nerve pain, the consequences can include long-term disability, future treatment, pain management, and permanent work restrictions.

Maritime damages can be broader than many workers realize.A serious case may involve not only wages, but diminished earning capacity, future care, and other long-term losses.

Maintenance and cure may also matter.An injured seaman may have separate rights to maintenance payments and necessary medical treatment until maximum medical improvement.

Speak With a Jones Act Deckhand Crush Injury Lawyer

The Young Firm represents injured maritime workers throughout the Gulf Coast, including deckhands, dredge workers, tug crews, tankermen, offshore personnel, and other seamen hurt in vessel and industrial waterway accidents.

Attorney Tim Young and the firm investigate how the work was planned, what equipment was used, who controlled vessel movement, whether safety procedures addressed the actual task, and how the injury will affect the worker’s future.

If you or someone you love was injured on a dredge, vessel, barge, or maritime worksite in Sabine Pass, Port Arthur, Beaumont, or elsewhere along the Gulf Coast, contact The Young Firm to discuss your rights under the Jones Act and general maritime law.

The consultation is free. The conversation is confidential. Deadlines may apply.