seem to be consistent with the conclusion that the direct association 

 of yearly receipts and claim losses is largely spurious due partly to 

 the existing maritime legislation eind partly to the attitudes and 

 conduct of labor within the industry and to the middlemen (lairyers, 

 brokers, etc.) who participate in the settlement of claims from 

 without. 



2. The o\/ner's lia bilit y for accidents of crewmen . In order to 

 understsjid the basic sources of the protection and indemnity insurance 

 problem it is necessary to discuss briefly the major features which 

 determine the liability of the vessel owner for accidents, sickness, 

 or death of crewmen. 



Tlie shipowner's liability is detennined by the maritime law as 

 modified by that part of the Merchant Marine Act of 19^0, commonly 

 called the Jones Act, which made the Federal Employers' Liability 

 Act of 1908 applicable to seamen. Under the provisions of this 

 legislation, the shipowner is liable on three counts: for negli- 

 gence, for unsea'.rorthiaesG, both of vfhich are decided oy Jw''y> ^^^ 

 for maintenance and cure which is normally heard by the court 

 sittin^^ in adiairalty. The owner's liability is unlimiiA=d, and the 

 injured oerrian's lost wages are a preferred lien on the a^i-cts of 

 the physical or legal entity which owns the vessel. In other words, 

 the ma::imuiri ajaount which an injured seaman cem receive is not 

 limited, and the jury's award to the cre-vmian must be satisfied in 

 full before other creditors of the owner are honored. 



Although the above provisions are quite onerous by themselves, 

 what makes the matter worse is the fact that it is left to the 

 courts to decide whether and under what circumstances the oimer 

 has been negligent or the vessel unseaworthy and therefore liable 

 for injuri.,s, sickness, or death of a creimajn. In fact, it is 

 quite Itiitiraate to argue that Jurisprudence of the 1930' s and 

 lat^^r y.-ai's prepared the ground for the rise of the protection 

 tuid ind.jiuriity insurance problem in the fishing industry by making 

 a more liberal interpretation of the provisions of the existing 

 maritime legislation. 



In brief, jurisprudence widened the scope of the law in ways 

 which have adversely affected insurability of commercial fishing 

 vessels. First, although the law refers to seamen in general, the 

 courtD liixve held that a fisherman has the status of a seaman. The 

 fact that a flaht-nnan usually works on a share basis does not 

 constitute adequate grounds for considering the fishing trip a 

 joint vr-nture. Therefore, a fisherman can sue for personal 

 injuri.^tj or death under the Jones Act and for maintenance and 

 cure nn.ier the (i,eneral Admiralty Law (Cf. 1932 A.M.C. 835; 1933 

 A.M.C. l';l'(; 1.93'i A.M.C. 1505; and 19'^^0 A.M.C. 12?). Second, 



i''i 



