US-CA11 · jury_instructions
11th Cir. Pattern Jury Instr. (Civil) 8.1
Jones Act – Negligence and Unseaworthiness – General
Instruction (Comparative Negligence Defense)
[Name of plaintiff] has brought a claim under a federal statute known as the
Jones Act. The Jones Act provides a remedy to a seaman who, while employed as a
crewmember of a vessel in navigation, suffers personal injuries because of the
negligence of the seaman’s employer, or the employer’s officers, agents, or other
employees.
Specifically, [name of plaintiff] claims that [name of defendant] [describe
the specific act(s) or omission(s) asserted as the defendant’s negligence].
To succeed on a claim under the Jones Act, [name of plaintiff] must prove
each of the following facts by a preponderance of the evidence:
First: you must find that at the time of the alleged injury, [name of plaintiff]
was acting in the course of employment as a crewmember of a vessel in navigation.
Second, you must find that [name of defendant] was negligent.
And third, you must find that the negligence was a legal cause of the injury
or damage [name of plaintiff] sustained.
[In the verdict form that I’ll explain in a moment, you’ll be asked to answer
questions about these factual issues.]
[The parties have agreed that, at the time of the alleged injury, [name of
plaintiff] was acting in the course of employment as a crewmember of a vessel in
navigation so you should accept that as a proven fact.]
2
5.13
Provenance
- Source
- ca11.uscourts.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-08-20
- Edition
- civil-2025-12
- Content hash
f71dd5965d735cf890d8a80420fd5ce6f675c1aca9314f84a2eb5270fa1666eb
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.