5th Cir. Pattern Jury Instr. (Civil) 4.1

Plaintiff [name] is seeking damages from Defendant

[name] for injuries that [he/she] allegedly suffered as a

result of an accident while [he/she] was performing

[specify work/task].

Plaintiff [name]’s claim arises under a federal law

known as the maritime law. In order for Plaintiff to recover for the claims [he/she] is asserting, claims for

[maintenance and cure, damages under the Jones Act

and for unseaworthiness], Plaintiff must be a seaman.

Plaintiff [name] claims that because of the nature of

[his/her] employment with Defendant [name], [he/she]

was a seaman and is entitled to bring this claim.

Defendant [name] denies that Plaintiff [name] was a

seaman and contends that [he/she] has no such right.

You must first determine whether, when the accident

happened, Plaintiff [name] was a seaman as the law

defines that term.

1

A two-part test is used to make this determination.

For Plaintiff [name] to be considered a seaman:

1. [his/her] duties must contribute to the function

of the vessel or the accomplishment of the vessel’s mission; and

2. [he/she] must have an employment related connection to [a vessel] [an identifiable group of

1McDermott Int’l., Inc. v. Wilander , 498 U.S. 337, 355 (1991).

37

vessels subject to common ownership or control]

2

that is substantial in both duration and

nature.

For the first part of the test, you must determine

whether Plaintiff [name] has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that [his/her] duties contributed to

the function of a vessel or the accomplishment of its

mission or to the operation of the vessel. A person need

not aid in the navigation of a vessel in order to qualify

as a seaman. Plaintiff [name] must show only that [he/

she] did the ship’s work.

3

If you do not find this first part of the test satisfied,

then your deliberations on seaman status are over and

Plaintiff [name] cannot recover under the Jones Act,

unseaworthiness or for maintenance and cure.

If you do find this first part of the test satisfied,

you then must consider the second part of the test. You

must decide whether Plaintiff [name] has proved by a

preponderance of the evidence that [he/she] has a

substantial employment related connection to [a vessel]

[an identifiable group of vessels under common ownership or control] that is substantial in terms of both

duration and nature.

4

In determining whether Plaintiff

[name] has proved that [he/she] had a connection to [a

vessel] [an identifiable group of vessels under common

ownership or control] that is both substantial in duration and nature, you must consider the totality of the

circumstances of [his/her] employment. The ultimate

2Harbor Tug & Barge Co. v. Papai , 520 U.S. 548, 557 (1997).

3Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis , 515 U.S. 347, 368 (1995).

4Chandris, Inc. , 515 U.S. at 366 (citing with approval the Fifth

Circuit’s definition of an “identifiable fleet” of vessels as a “finite group of

vessels under common ownership or control.”); Barrett v. Chevron, U.S.A.,

Inc., 781 F .2d 1067, 1074 (5th Cir. 1986) (“By fleet we mean an identifiable

group of vessels acting together or under one control”); Bertrand v. Int’l

Mooring & Marine, Inc. , 700 F .2d 240, 244–45 (5th Cir. 1983) (“[O]ne can

be a member of a crew of numerous vessels which have common ownership or control.”).