## Facts

- August Solet worked as a deckhand aboard the shrimp trawler M/V Capt. H. V. Dufrene, operating under a share-of-catch compensation arrangement.
- The vessel’s owner, Elvin J. Dufrene, modified the rigging to troll two nets simultaneously by adding a welded cross-arm and welded pad eyes to support a shackle and block.
- Dufrene hired a welder to perform part of the work, including the weld that later failed.
- Dufrene orally let the vessel “on shares” to Captain Kirwin Parfait: Dufrene furnished the fully rigged vessel and paid fuel, maintenance, and repairs; Parfait selected buyers, ran the trip, and hired and directed the crew.
- On April 13, 1966, while shrimping in the Gulf of Mexico near the Louisiana coast, Solet used a winch to lift a net when the pad-eye weld broke.
- The shackle, block, and cable fell and struck Solet, causing serious injury.
- Solet sued Dufrene in personam and the vessel in rem for Jones Act negligence, maritime negligence, unseaworthiness, and maintenance and cure (including damages for failure to pay); the case was tried to the court without a jury.

## Issues

1. Whether Dufrene was Solet’s “employer” for Jones Act purposes where Parfait hired, supervised, and paid the crew from shares.
2. Whether the failed weld and resulting rigging defect rendered the vessel unseaworthy and, if so, whether the owner and vessel were liable.
3. Whether Dufrene was liable under general maritime law negligence for the rigging modification and resulting defective condition.
4. Whether the share arrangement constituted a demise (bareboat) charter that shifted owner-like responsibility for the vessel’s condition away from Dufrene.
5. Whether Solet was entitled to maintenance and cure, and whether a “joint venture” theory defeated or limited that obligation.
6. What damages were recoverable for personal injury and for nonpayment of maintenance and cure.

## Decision

- The court held Dufrene was not Solet’s Jones Act employer; the Jones Act claim against Dufrene failed.
- The court found the vessel unseaworthy because the welded pad eye failed during ordinary use, and that unseaworthiness caused Solet’s injury.
- The court found Dufrene liable under general maritime law negligence in connection with the rigging modification and defective condition; the vessel was also liable in rem.
- The court ruled the share arrangement with Parfait was not a demise charter; Dufrene retained responsibility for the vessel’s condition, maintenance, and repairs.
- The court awarded Solet maintenance and cure against Dufrene and the vessel and awarded additional damages for failure to provide maintenance and cure when owed.
- The court entered judgment for Solet on unseaworthiness, maritime negligence, and maintenance-and-cure claims, with damages for pain and suffering and lost earnings/earning capacity.

## Legal Principles

- Jones Act liability requires an employer-employee relationship; ownership alone does not establish “employer” status when another party hires, pays, and controls the seaman’s work.
- The warranty of seaworthiness is nondelegable; a vessel is unseaworthy when gear is not reasonably fit for its intended use, including when a defectively welded fitting fails in normal operations.
- A vessel owner may be liable in personam for maritime negligence for conditions the owner caused or for which the owner retained responsibility, even if the work was performed by a contractor.
- A share-based operating agreement does not constitute a demise charter unless possession and control are fully transferred; retention of responsibility for fuel, maintenance, and repairs indicates the owner remains accountable for the vessel’s condition.
- Maintenance and cure is owed to an injured seaman who was in service of the vessel; characterizing the relationship as a “joint venture” does not, by itself, defeat the obligation where the seaman served as a crew member.
- Failure to pay maintenance and cure when due can support an additional damages award beyond the unpaid amounts.

## Conclusion

The court rejected Jones Act liability because the owner was not the seaman’s employer under the share arrangement, but it imposed liability for unseaworthiness, maritime negligence, and maintenance and cure because the owner retained responsibility for the vessel’s condition and the defective weld failed during ordinary work, injuring a crew member.


Solet v. M/V Capt. H. V. Dufrene, 303 F. Supp. 980 (E.D. La. 1969)