Jones Act Claims and Their Georgian Counterpart
In the United States, lawsuits by seafarers injured in navigation are known by the name of the Jones Act — an institution of American legislation governing the shipowner's liability for injury to a crew member. No law of that name exists in Georgia, but the same function is performed by three norms of the Maritime Code of Georgia: Article 62, which determines the foundations of the seafarer's employment relationship; Article 339, which removes crew injury claims from the shipowner's limitation of liability; and Article 350, which places those claims ahead of all others — first in the queue. This page explains how the mechanism works under the Georgian Code and how an injured seafarer can enforce these rights.
What the Jones Act Is and Why It Does Not Exist in Georgia
The Jones Act — a federal law of the United States — gives seafarers the right to sue the shipowner for a work-related injury and even to be treated as railway employees before the court. Georgian procedure proceeds differently: the Maritime Code of Georgia directly provides that claims for injury to crew members are not subject to limitation of liability, and at the same time grants them a privileged rank of satisfaction. For a Georgian seafarer, the functional analogue of the Jones Act is therefore found in the precise norms of the Maritime Code, and a claim is drafted on exactly that basis.
The Foundations of the Seafarer's Employment — Article 62
Article 62 of the Code provides that the procedures for the employment of seafarers, their rights and duties, and the rules on their social protection are determined by the labour legislation of Georgia, the Georgian Law on Seafarers' Labour, the maritime disciplinary charter, and the seafarer's employment contract. This norm matters because the foundations of an injury claim — the existence of the employment relationship, the terms of the contract, insurance and social guarantees — are established precisely by these acts. The question of which rules apply in a seafarer's dispute is thus answered directly: the Code points to the labour legislation and the special law.
Crew Injury Claims Outside the Limitation of Liability — Article 339
In maritime law the shipowner, as a rule, may limit his liability under the procedure established by the Code — one of the best-known institutions of the field. But Article 339 removes a whole series of claim categories from that limitation: it does not apply to claims arising from salvage or general average contribution; to the claims of the crew and other servants of the shipowner whose duty is connected with the ship, and to the claims of heirs or citizens entitled to support — unless the legislation regulating their relationship with the shipowner itself provides otherwise; to claims for the removal or destruction of sunken property; to claims for pollution damage caused by harmful substances and oil; and to claims for compensation of nuclear damage — in the cases determined by separate chapters of the Code.
From the seafarer's perspective the decisive element is the second item of the first group: a claim arising from injury, damage to health or the death of a crew member is not subject to the limitation of liability. The shipowner therefore cannot hide behind the shield of limitation when the matter concerns the life or health of a member of the crew he himself employed.