RECENT CASE:
Okada vs. Kelly-Ryan, Inc.

A financial settlement obtained by Charles Jones under maritime law provisions created lifetime security for a critically injured tugboat deckhand – even though the injury occurred away from the vessel.

42-year-old James Okada worked aboard the tugboat Casey Marie, engaged in shipping prefabricated homes from Seattle to remote Alaskan outposts. His injury came as he was on a house-moving crew navigating down a road in Napakiak, 400 miles northwest of Anchorage. Okada stood atop the moving house and made sure it cleared power and phone lines, which were supposed to be disabled for the occasion. But when the house approached the main Bethel-Napakiak line, packing 14,400 volts, Okada was suddenly surrounded by an “orange glow,” according to a witness, and tumbled to the ground unconscious. The line was live.

With severe facial burns, his blue jeans and shoe melted onto his left foot, Okada was airlifted to Seattle. Over a long convalescent period his left leg was amputated, he underwent multiple cataract surgeries, and coped with an array of other injuries, including an organic brain injury, that left him permanently disqualified for his deckhand job. Okada retained Charles of Jones & Ward and filed suit against Kelly-Ryan, Inc., the operator of the Casey Marie.

Kelly-Ryan argued that as the injury occurred away from the Casey Marie, Okada was entitled only to Alaska worker’s compensation. Jones asserted that in fact Okada was covered by the Jones Act, a special maritime law covering injuries to seamen that compensates for the generally more dangerous nature of their work.

The U.S. Supreme Court had ruled in 1995 that as long as a seaman had a “substantial” connection to a vessel and was contributing to its function or mission, the site of an injury was irrelevant. So the legal task became demonstrating that Okada met that litmus test.

Jones deposed the crew of the Casey Marie, establishing that working alongside a shore crew was a key duty of theirs, formalized by special “cargo pay.” He also exposed deficiencies in company safety practice: an on-site supervisor testified that he had read only “a quarter” of the company safety manual, but found it boring and discarded it.

The defendant ultimately conceded that the Jones Act applied and settled Okada’s claim in a judicial conference. Charles obtained a settlement well into seven figures – sufficient to support James Okada’s rehabilitation and continuing campaign to repair and improve his life.

Jones Law. Attorney at law. Counselor for life.