Inland Tankerman — $200,000.00

Case Snapshot

• Client: Inland Tankerman
• Worksite: M/V [VESSEL], a 2,000-horsepower towboat, at a Phillips 66 refinery dock in Louisiana
• Incident Type: Emergency line-handling injury during barge-spotting operation
• Date of Incident: October 2, 2017
• Injuries: Chronic low back injury, bilateral leg radicular pain, headaches, sleep disruption, reduced lifting and climbing ability, anxiety, and depression
• Legal Issues: Jones Act negligence, unseaworthiness, shorthanded crew, solo emergency line-handling, lack of pre-task safety planning, and unsafe barge-spotting procedures
• Case Result: $200,000.00

A Routine Barge-Spotting Job That Turned Into a Career-Changing Injury

This Jones Act tankerman back injury case involved an inland tankerman who was seriously hurt while working aboard a towboat at a Louisiana refinery dock. What should have been a controlled barge-spotting operation became an emergency line-handling situation when the barges began gapping away from the dock. At that critical moment, our client was alone on deck, handling a heavy wet line without another crew member there to help.

For tankermen, deckhands, and towboat crew members, this type of work is physically demanding even when everything goes according to plan. It requires communication between the wheelhouse, the deck crew, and shore-side personnel. It requires adequate manning. It requires a clear plan before the job begins. When those things are missing, a routine docking job can quickly become dangerous.

That is what happened here.

Our client was working aboard the M/V [VESSEL], a 2,000-horsepower towboat, during a barge-spotting operation at a Phillips 66 refinery dock in Louisiana. As the barges began to separate from the dock, he had to respond immediately. With no backup crewman beside him, he attempted to throw a heavy, waterlogged tie-off line to the dock to get an anchor in place.

The line was wet. The situation was urgent. The deck was shorthanded. And when he threw the line, his back gave out under the load.

What followed was not just a temporary injury. It was a serious maritime back injury that threatened his ability to continue working as a tankerman and damaged the long-term maritime career path he had been building for years.

Why This Case Mattered

Our client was not just working a job. He was building a future in the inland towing industry.

Like many maritime workers, he had worked his way up. He had vessel experience, tankerman credentials, and plans to keep advancing. He had been building toward the wheelhouse, which meant more responsibility, better pay, and a more stable long-term career. That path takes years of work, sea time, training, and discipline.

A serious back injury can take that away in a single moment.

Before the incident, our client was earning strong maritime wages, with an income of more than $80,000 per year and the potential to earn more as he advanced. After the injury, the question was not only whether he could return to some type of work. The real question was whether he could return to the maritime career he had spent years building.

That distinction mattered throughout the case.

The defense tried to reduce the case to residual work capacity. They focused on whether he might be able to perform some lower-paying job outside the maritime industry. But that ignored the real loss: a tankerman who was on track for a higher-paying maritime career had been physically limited by an unsafe vessel operation.

What Went Wrong During the Line-Handling Operation

Barge-spotting at a refinery dock is not supposed to be improvised. These operations involve large vessels, heavy lines, shifting forces, changing water conditions, and constant coordination. A safe operation depends on having enough crew members in the right places and a clear plan before the work begins.

The evidence showed several major safety failures.

First, the crew was shorthanded. When the barges began gapping out, our client was the only person on deck in position to respond. He was forced into emergency line-handling alone, even though handling a wet tie-off line under urgent conditions is not a one-man job.

Second, there was no meaningful pre-task safety meeting before the operation. A pre-task meeting is where the crew discusses the job, identifies hazards, assigns roles, confirms communication, and plans for foreseeable problems. When a vessel crew is shifting barges at a refinery dock, that planning step is not optional in any practical sense. It is one of the ways preventable deck injuries are avoided.

Third, the operation was not properly coordinated. The captain was allegedly relying on radio directions rather than a formal docking plan and did not have complete information about the barges being handled. In a barge-spotting operation, the person running the vessel needs to understand what is being moved, where it is going, and what the deck crew will be required to do if the barges do not hold position.

Fourth, the line itself became part of the danger. A wet line can become much heavier and harder to handle than a dry one. What might be manageable with two crew members can become dangerous when one tankerman is expected to handle it alone during an emergency.

Our position was straightforward: this was not a freak accident. It was the predictable result of unsafe manning, poor planning, and a failure to protect the deck crew.

The Company’s Defense

After the injury, the company tried to minimize what happened.

The defense focused on whether our client still had some ability to work. They pointed to a Functional Capacity Evaluation and tried to use language about inconsistent performance to suggest that his limitations were not as serious as he claimed. They also relied on vocational and economic arguments that assumed he could move into lower-wage alternative employment.

That kind of defense is common in Jones Act back injury cases. Maritime employers often try to shift the focus away from the unsafe operation and toward the injured worker’s supposed remaining capacity. They may argue that the worker can still do “something,” even if he can no longer do the maritime work that formed the foundation of his career.

But being able to perform limited alternative work is not the same thing as being able to return to tankerman duties. It is not the same thing as being able to climb, lift, pull, stand, sit, work lines, and meet the physical demands of inland vessel work. And it is not the same thing as being able to continue advancing toward the wheelhouse.

The defense also suggested that our client should have handled the situation differently. In effect, they tried to place responsibility on the one person who had been left alone on deck during an emergency.

We disagreed.

Our view was that our client did what the situation demanded of him. The problem was that the operation had not been set up to protect him in the first place.

Building the Jones Act and Unseaworthiness Case

Our investigation focused on the operational record: who planned the barge-spotting job, who controlled the work, what the captain knew, what the deck crew was told, and why one tankerman was left alone during emergency line-handling.

The case centered on two core maritime claims: Jones Act negligence and unseaworthiness.

Under the Jones Act, an injured seaman may bring a claim when the employer’s negligence plays a role in causing the injury. In this case, the negligence evidence included the shorthanded crew, the lack of a proper pre-task safety meeting, the solo emergency line assignment, and the failure to adequately plan and coordinate the docking operation.

The unseaworthiness claim focused on whether the vessel and its crew were reasonably fit for the work being performed. A vessel can be unseaworthy not only because of defective equipment, but also because of inadequate crew, unsafe methods, or poor operational procedures. Here, the problem was not simply that a line was heavy. The problem was that the vessel operation placed one tankerman in a dangerous emergency situation without enough help.

Our legal team developed the case through deposition testimony, expert analysis, medical records, vocational evidence, economic loss evidence, and the incident materials. The goal was to show the full picture: this injury was not isolated from the way the job was planned. It was caused by the way the job was planned.

The Human Cost of a Maritime Back Injury

Back injuries are sometimes minimized by companies because they are not always visible. But for a tankerman, deckhand, or towboat crew member, a serious low back injury can be career-ending.

Our client dealt with chronic low back pain, pain radiating into both legs, daily headaches, sleep disruption, and physical limitations that affected lifting, climbing, standing, and sitting. Those limitations mattered because vessel work is physically demanding. A tankerman cannot safely return to full duty if he cannot reliably meet the physical demands of the deck.

The injury also affected him emotionally. Losing the ability to work the way he had worked before, support his family the way he expected, and continue the maritime career he had been building caused anxiety and depression. Those losses were part of the case too.

A serious Jones Act injury case is not just about medical bills. It is about wages, future earning capacity, pain, physical restrictions, career loss, and the way an injury changes the worker’s life outside the vessel.

Why Location Mattered

This was a Louisiana Gulf Coast maritime injury case involving inland towing work, refinery dock operations, tankerman duties, and federal maritime law. That location mattered.

The Gulf Coast is home to towboats, barges, tankermen, deckhands, refinery docks, fleeting areas, and inland waterway operations. Jurors in this region are more likely to understand that maritime work is not ordinary land-based work. They understand that when a vessel worker loses his physical ability to do the job, he may lose an entire career path.

The witness geography also mattered. Key witnesses were connected to Louisiana maritime communities and the broader Gulf Coast operational structure. Building the case required understanding the local industry, the way towboat crews work, and the courts that handle serious Jones Act claims.

The Young Firm represents injured maritime workers across Louisiana, the Gulf Coast, and inland waterways. In cases like this, local maritime knowledge helps connect the legal issues to the real-world vessel operation that caused the injury.

Lessons for Other Injured Tankermen and Towboat Workers

This case offers several important lessons for injured maritime workers.

If you were hurt while working alone on deck, that matters. A company may try to make it sound normal, but solo line-handling during an emergency can be evidence of unsafe manning.

If there was no pre-task safety meeting, that matters too. The absence of planning can help show that the company failed to identify hazards, assign backup help, and prepare the crew for foreseeable problems.

If the line was wet, heavy, or difficult to handle, that should be documented. Wet lines are a known hazard in maritime work, especially when one crew member is expected to handle them under pressure.

If the company says you can still do some other job, that does not end the case. The issue is not only whether you can earn any income. The issue is what maritime career, wages, and future earning capacity you lost because of the injury.

And if the company tries to blame you, talk to a Jones Act lawyer before accepting that version of events. Maritime companies often control the early narrative after an accident. The sooner an attorney investigates, the better chance there is to preserve evidence, identify witnesses, review vessel records, and build the liability case properly.

Injured While Working Lines, Barges, or Towboats?

The Young Firm represents injured tankermen, deckhands, towboat crew members, and other seamen in Jones Act and unseaworthiness claims. We handle cases involving shorthanded crews, unsafe line-handling, refinery dock incidents, wet-line injuries, back injuries, and career-ending maritime accidents.

If you were hurt while handling lines, spotting barges, working a shorthanded deck, or responding to an emergency without proper help, you may have rights under maritime law.

Call The Young Firm today for a free case review. We do not collect a fee unless we win your case.

Call us today to get things moving forward for you and your family.