Houston Maritime Attorney

Free Consultation

A Vessel "In Navigation": The Definitive Guide to a Critical Element of Your Jones Act Claim

For an injured maritime worker, the path to justice under the Jones Act hinges on a series of complex legal questions. None are more fundamental, or more fiercely contested, than whether the structure you were working on was a **"vessel in navigation"** at the time of your injury. This phrase may seem simple, but in the world of maritime law, it is a precise legal term of art that can determine the fate of your entire case.

If the vessel you were on was not legally "in navigation," you cannot qualify as a Jones Act seaman. If you are not a seaman, you lose the right to sue your employer for negligence and recover full compensation for your pain and suffering, lost future wages, and other life-altering damages. Maritime companies and their insurance carriers are acutely aware of this, and they will often seize upon any ambiguity in a vessel's status—especially if it was docked, undergoing repairs, or a specialized watercraft—to argue that it was not "in navigation" and thereby defeat your claim.

This guide was created to be the most comprehensive resource available on this critical topic. We will provide an exhaustive, in-depth exploration of the legal test for what constitutes a "vessel in navigation." We will analyze the key court cases that have shaped this definition, explore the complex "drydock rule," examine real-world examples of qualifying and non-qualifying structures, and explain exactly why this determination is so vital to your future. Our mission is to provide you with the clarity and knowledge you need to understand and protect your rights.

Guide Contents: Understanding "In Navigation"

• I. The Foundation: Why "In Navigation" is Essential for Seaman Status
• II. Step One: What Qualifies as a "Vessel" Under Maritime Law?
• III. Step Two: The Four-Part Test for "In Navigation"
• IV. The Gray Zone: The Drydock Rule and Other Complex Scenarios
• V. Why This Determination is Crucial to Your Financial Recovery
• VI. How an Attorney Proves a Vessel Was "In Navigation"
• VII. Frequently Asked Questions About the "In Navigation" Requirement

I. The Foundation: Why "In Navigation" is Essential for Seaman Status

The "in navigation" requirement is not a standalone rule; it is a crucial component of the legal test for determining who qualifies as a **Jones Act seaman**. As established by the U.S. Supreme Court in landmark cases like *Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis*, a worker must prove a three-part test to gain the protections of the Jones Act. [1, 2]

1. The worker's duties must contribute to the function of the vessel or the accomplishment of its mission.
2. The worker must have a connection to a **vessel in navigation** (or an identifiable fleet of such vessels).
3. That connection must be substantial in both its duration and its nature.

As you can see, the second prong of this test explicitly requires a connection to a "vessel in navigation." If the structure you were injured on does not meet this legal definition, the test for seaman status fails at this step. You cannot be a seaman without a vessel, and you cannot have a qualifying vessel if it is not "in navigation." This makes understanding the definition of this term absolutely paramount.

II. Step One: What Qualifies as a "Vessel" Under Maritime Law?

Before we can determine if a vessel is "in navigation," we must first establish that the structure in question is, in fact, a "vessel." The Jones Act itself does not define the term, so the courts have turned to other federal statutes and a long history of case law for guidance. [3]

The general definition, codified in 1 U.S.C. §3, states that a vessel includes **"every description of watercraft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water."** [3, 4] This is an intentionally broad definition. The key is not the structure's purpose, but its capability for transportation on water. [5]

Landmark Case: *Stewart v. Dutra Construction Co.* (2005)

This Supreme Court case was pivotal in clarifying the modern definition of a vessel. The case involved a massive dredge called the *Super Scoop*, which was used to excavate a tunnel in Boston Harbor. An engineer was injured on the dredge and filed a Jones Act claim. The employer argued the dredge was not a vessel, but merely a stationary work platform. The Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that because the *Super Scoop* was capable of moving over water (even if it was stationary while dredging), it qualified as a vessel under the law. This decision affirmed that even special-purpose watercraft can be Jones Act vessels. [3, 4, 6]

Examples of Structures That ARE Typically Considered Vessels:

• **Traditional Ships:** Tankers, cargo ships, container ships, cruise ships, ferries. [5]
• **Workboats:** Tugboats, towboats, supply boats (OSVs), crew boats. [5]
• **Barges and Similar Craft:** Even unpowered barges, scows, and pontoon rafts are considered vessels because they are used to transport cargo over water. [5]
• **Movable Offshore Rigs:** This is a critical category. Jack-up rigs, semi-submersible rigs, and drillships are all considered vessels because they are designed to move from one drilling location to another. [3, 5]
• **Special-Purpose Vessels:** Dredges, floating cranes, and some floating work platforms or dormitories can qualify as vessels if they are capable of transportation. [5, 7]

Examples of Structures That Are NOT Typically Considered Vessels:

• **Fixed Offshore Platforms:** Platforms that are permanently attached to the seabed by steel or concrete legs are not vessels. [8, 9]
• **Floating Docks and Piers:** A floating structure that is more or less permanently moored and used as an extension of land is not a vessel.
• **Bridges, Tunnels, and other Land-Based Structures:** These are not vessels, even if they are being constructed over navigable water.

III. Step Two: The Four-Part Test for "In Navigation"

Once it is established that a worker was on a "vessel," the next critical inquiry is whether that vessel was "in navigation" at the time of the injury. Through decades of case law, the courts have developed a clear, four-part test to make this determination. The vessel must be: [5, 8, 10, 11]

Infographic Placeholder: A four-quadrant infographic titled "The 'In Navigation' Test," with each quadrant detailing one of the four criteria: Afloat, In Operation, Capable of Moving, and On Navigable Waters.

1. The Vessel Must Be Afloat

This is the most basic requirement. The vessel must be floating on water. [8, 10] A ship that is on land, whether it's being built, repaired, or dismantled, is not afloat and therefore not in navigation. This seems simple, but it becomes complex when considering vessels in drydock, which we will explore in detail later.

2. The Vessel Must Be "In Operation"

The vessel must be actively engaged in its intended commercial or transportation purpose. It must be a working vessel, carrying out the business of the maritime industry. [5, 8] This requirement is what excludes certain watercraft from Jones Act coverage, even if they are afloat and moving.

The "New Ship" Exception:

A newly constructed vessel that is undergoing sea trials but has not yet been delivered to its owner or commissioned into service is **not** considered "in operation." [12, 13, 10] Therefore, a worker injured during these pre-commissioning trials would not be on a vessel "in navigation" and would not qualify for a Jones Act claim.

3. The Vessel Must Be Capable of Moving

The vessel must be able to move, either under its own power or by being towed. [4, 5] This is a critical distinction. It does **not** mean the vessel must be moving at the time of the injury. A ship moored to a dock to load cargo is still "in navigation" because it is staffed, equipped, and ready to set sail at any time. [5, 10] The key is its present capability for movement, not its actual movement at the moment of the accident.

This is the element that excludes fixed oil platforms. While they are in the water and in operation, they are permanently anchored to the seabed and are not capable of moving. [8, 9]

4. The Vessel Must Be on "Navigable Waters"

Finally, the vessel must be on navigable waters. This is a legal term that means the body of water is used, or is capable of being used, for interstate or foreign commerce. [10, 11] This includes:

• Oceans and the Gulf of Mexico.
• Major rivers that cross state lines (e.g., the Mississippi River).
• Lakes that border multiple states or countries (e.g., the Great Lakes).
• Canals and waterways that connect to these other bodies of water (e.g., the Houston Ship Channel).

A landlocked lake that is entirely within one state and does not connect to any other navigable waterway would not be considered "navigable waters" for the purpose of a Jones Act claim.

IV. The Gray Zone: The Drydock Rule and Other Complex Scenarios

The four-part test provides a clear framework, but the most difficult "in navigation" questions arise when a vessel is temporarily taken out of service for repairs or maintenance. This is known as the **Drydock Doctrine**.

The General Drydock Rule

The general rule is that a vessel in a drydock for major repairs or a significant overhaul is **not** considered to be "in navigation." [12, 13, 5] The reasoning is that the vessel is not "afloat" and is temporarily withdrawn from service, so it is not currently operating or capable of moving. A worker injured on a vessel while it is physically out of the water in a drydock would typically not be able to bring a Jones Act claim.

Landmark Case: *Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis* (1995)

This Supreme Court case is the most important decision on this issue. The case involved a superintendent engineer, Antonios Latsis, who was injured on a voyage. Afterwards, he sailed with the vessel to Germany, where it was placed in drydock for a major refurbishment. The trial court instructed the jury that they could not consider the time Latsis spent with the vessel while it was in drydock when determining his seaman status, because it was "out of navigation." [14, 15, 16]

The Supreme Court ruled that this instruction was an error. The Court held that whether a vessel is "in navigation" is a **fact-intensive question that should be decided by the jury**, not by the judge as a matter of law, unless the facts overwhelmingly support only one conclusion. [17, 1, 16] The Court reasoned that a jury could find that a vessel undergoing even substantial repairs might still be "in navigation," and it was wrong to automatically exclude that time from consideration. The time spent sailing *to and from* the drydock, of course, absolutely counts. [14]

The Modern Analysis: It's a Question of Fact

The key takeaway from *Chandris* is that there is no black-and-white rule. An experienced maritime attorney must analyze the specific facts of the situation to determine if a vessel was truly out of navigation. Factors to consider include:

• **The extent of the repairs:** Were they minor, routine maintenance, or a major structural overhaul?
• **The location of the repairs:** Was the vessel afloat at a repair pier, or was it physically out of the water in a drydock?
• **The status of the crew:** Was the regular crew still living and working aboard the vessel during the repairs?
• **The duration of the repair period:** Was it a few days, or many months?

V. Why This Determination is Crucial to Your Financial Recovery

The legal fight over whether a vessel was "in navigation" is so intense because the financial stakes are incredibly high. The outcome of this single question dictates which legal remedy is available to you, which in turn determines the amount and type of compensation you can recover.

• **If the vessel WAS in navigation:** You can qualify as a Jones Act seaman and sue your employer for negligence. You can recover **full damages**, including for pain and suffering and your complete loss of future earning capacity. [18]
• **If the vessel was NOT in navigation:** You cannot be a Jones Act seaman. You would likely be classified as a harbor worker and your exclusive remedy against your employer would be the **Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA)**. The LHWCA provides for medical benefits and two-thirds of your lost wages, but it does **not** allow you to recover any damages for pain and suffering from your employer. [18]

The difference in potential recovery between these two legal paths can easily be hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars. This is why employers will fight tooth and nail to argue a vessel was out of navigation.

VI. How an Attorney Proves a Vessel Was "In Navigation"

Proving that a vessel was "in navigation" requires a deep dive into the vessel's operational history and the circumstances surrounding the repair or docking period. Our firm conducts a meticulous investigation, which includes:

• **Subpoenaing Vessel Records:** We demand access to the vessel's logs, AIS (Automatic Identification System) data, daily reports, and movement records.
• **Analyzing Repair Contracts:** We obtain and scrutinize the contracts with the shipyard or drydock facility to determine the scope and intended duration of the work.
• **Deposing Key Personnel:** We take sworn testimony from the vessel owner, captain, port engineer, and shipyard managers to establish the vessel's operational status before, during, and after the repair period.
• **Consulting Maritime Experts:** We work with naval architects and other maritime experts who can provide testimony about whether the vessel remained "capable of movement" and fit for its intended service.

VII. Frequently Asked Questions About the "In Navigation" Requirement

Don't Let a Legal Technicality Sink Your Claim.

The "vessel in navigation" requirement is one of the most complex and highly contested issues in maritime law. Your employer will use any ambiguity to deny your rights as a seaman. You need an expert on your side who understands the law, knows the court precedents, and has the resources to prove your case. If you were injured on a vessel and are unsure of your rights, contact us today for a 100% free and confidential consultation.

Call [Phone Number] - We're available 24/7 to fight for you.

Houston Maritime Attorney

This website is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Using this site or communicating with the firm through this site does not form an attorney/client relationship.

Copyright © 2025. All Rights Reserved.

const faqContainer = document.getElementById('faq-accordion'); faqData.forEach(item => { const accordionItem = document.createElement('div'); accordionItem.className = 'bg-white/70 rounded-lg shadow-sm'; accordionItem.innerHTML = ` ${item.q}

${item.a}

`; faqContainer.appendChild(accordionItem); accordionItem.querySelector('.accordion-header').addEventListener('click', (e) => { const header = e.currentTarget; header.classList.toggle('open'); header.nextElementSibling.classList.toggle('hidden'); }); });

// Smooth scroll for nav document.querySelectorAll('a[href^="#"]').forEach(anchor => { anchor.addEventListener('click', function (e) { e.preventDefault(); const targetId = this.getAttribute('href'); const targetElement = document.querySelector(targetId); if(targetElement) { window.scrollTo({ top: targetElement.offsetTop - 80, // Offset for sticky header behavior: 'smooth' }); } }); });});