Maritime AI & Robotics Liability: Port Automation, Offshore Robots & Autonomous Vessels

The Maritime Robotics Revolution

#

America’s ports and offshore operations are undergoing rapid automation. Automated cranes, autonomous guided vehicles (AGVs), and container handling robots are transforming port operations. Remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) and autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) dominate offshore oil and gas inspection. And autonomous vessels are moving from experimental projects to commercial reality.

But longshoremen and maritime workers are 5 times more likely to die on the job than the average American worker. As automation accelerates, new liability questions emerge: Who is responsible when an automated crane injures a dock worker? What happens when an ROV malfunctions during an offshore operation? How does traditional maritime law apply to autonomous ships?

Understanding Maritime Liability Law

#

Maritime workers are covered by a unique and complex legal framework that differs significantly from land-based workers’ compensation. Understanding which law applies is critical to maximizing your recovery.

The Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA)

#

The LHWCA, enacted in 1927, covers maritime employees who are injured or develop occupational illnesses while working on navigable waters or in adjoining areas such as docks, terminals, shipyards, and harbors.

Who Is Covered:

• Longshoremen and dock workers
• Ship repairers and shipbuilders
• Harbor construction workers
• Container terminal workers
• Crane operators
• Marine terminal operators

Key Benefits:

• Medical treatment costs (no caps)
• Temporary total disability (66 2/3% of average weekly wage)
• Permanent total disability benefits
• Permanent partial disability benefits
• Death benefits for dependents

Critical Limitation: Unlike the Jones Act, LHWCA does not allow workers to sue their employer for negligence. You receive scheduled benefits regardless of fault—but cannot recover pain and suffering or punitive damages from your employer.

The Jones Act (Merchant Marine Act of 1920)

#

The Jones Act provides broader remedies for workers who qualify as “seamen”—employees who spend more than 30% of their time in service of a vessel on navigable waters.

Key Advantages Over LHWCA:

• Right to sue employer for negligence (not just scheduled benefits)
• Jury trial available
• Pain and suffering damages
• Full lost wages (past and future)
• Punitive damages in egregious cases
• Comparative fault (recover even if partially at fault)

Common Jones Act Maritime Workers:

• Offshore oil platform workers (jack-up rigs, drillships, semi-submersibles)
• Tugboat and barge crew
• Cargo ship crew
• Fishing vessel crew
• ROV/AUV operators on vessels

Third-Party Product Liability

#

Regardless of whether LHWCA or the Jones Act applies, all maritime workers can pursue product liability claims against third parties—the manufacturers of defective equipment, including automated systems and robots.

Key Targets:

• Automated crane manufacturers (Liebherr, ZPMC, Konecranes)
• AGV and container handling system makers
• ROV/AUV manufacturers (Oceaneering, Saipem, TechnipFMC)
• Software developers for autonomous systems
• System integrators

Advantage: Product liability claims allow recovery of full damages including pain and suffering, unlike LHWCA’s scheduled benefits.

Port Automation: Injuries and Liability

#

The 2024 Labor Dispute Over Automation

#

In October 2024, approximately 45,000 members of the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) launched the first large-scale walkout at U.S. ports since 1977. At the center of the dispute: automation.

The ILA demanded a total ban on automation of gates, cranes, and container-moving trucks at 36 ports on the East and Gulf Coasts. The union’s concerns are grounded in both job losses and safety:

“From coast to coast, the ILWU and the ILA remain militant and resolute in our fight against automation—for the future of our workplace and the safety of our members.”

Automated Port Equipment

#

Automated Stacking Cranes (ASCs) Remote-controlled and fully automated cranes that move containers in terminal yards. Workers are removed from the cab but may work in proximity to the equipment.

Automated Guided Vehicles (AGVs) Unmanned, software-controlled container transporters that travel between quay cranes and stackyards. Konecranes and other manufacturers produce AGVs that navigate using embedded floor markers, GPS, and sensors.

Semi-Automated Terminals Many U.S. ports use “semi-automated” systems where some equipment is automated but human workers remain involved. Examples:

• Port of Norfolk (Virginia): Expanding to 90+ semi-automated stacking cranes
• Port Liberty (Bayonne, NJ): Limited semi-automation under ILA agreement
• TraPac Terminal (Los Angeles): Fully automated terminal that the ILA claims “destroyed 800 longshoremen jobs”

Safety Trade-Offs

#

Port automation presents a mixed safety picture:

Potential Benefits:

• Remote crane operation removes workers from dangerous cab environments
• Automated equipment eliminates some vehicle-pedestrian collisions
• Zero-emission electrical equipment reduces diesel pollution and health risks

New Risks:

• Human-robot interaction incidents in shared spaces
• Software failures causing unexpected equipment behavior
• Complexity of automated systems creating new failure modes
• Workers may be less familiar with automated equipment emergency procedures
• Reduced staffing may mean fewer workers available to assist in emergencies

Recent Port Worker Fatalities

#

The maritime industry continues to experience tragic fatalities:

• January 2022: Edgar Ruiz, a crane oiler, died in an industrial accident at the Port of Los Angeles’ Maersk Terminal
• February 2022: An outside driver at the same terminal was struck and killed by another trucker
• Early 2022: A 51-year-old longshore worker was badly injured at Seattle’s Terminal 5, hit by a heavy object

Major U.S. Ports and Automation Status

#

Offshore Robotics: ROVs, AUVs, and Liability

#

Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROVs)

#

ROVs are underwater robots controlled by operators on surface vessels or platforms. They’re extensively used in offshore oil and gas for:

• Pipeline inspection and maintenance
• Subsea equipment installation
• Wellhead monitoring
• Emergency response

Major ROV Operators:

• Oceaneering International
• Saipem
• TechnipFMC
• Subsea 7

Injury Scenarios:

• Launch and recovery incidents (crush injuries, falls)
• Tether entanglement
• Hydraulic system failures
• Electrical shock during maintenance
• Ergonomic injuries from extended operation

Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs)

#

AUVs operate without a physical tether, navigating autonomously using pre-programmed missions. They’re increasingly used for:

• Seabed mapping and surveys
• Pipeline route surveys
• Environmental monitoring
• Mine detection (military applications)

Liability Questions: Unlike ROVs (where a human operator makes real-time decisions), AUVs operate based on software algorithms. When an AUV causes damage or injury, liability may fall on:

• The AUV manufacturer (design/manufacturing defect)
• Software developers (algorithmic failure)
• The vessel owner/operator (negligent deployment)
• Maintenance contractors

Jones Act Coverage for Offshore Robotics Workers

#

Workers operating ROVs and AUVs from offshore platforms may qualify as “seamen” under the Jones Act if they:

• Spend more than 30% of their time in service of a vessel
• Work on a vessel that qualifies under the law (including mobile offshore drilling units)

The 2005 Supreme Court decision in Stewart v. Dutra Construction broadened the definition of “vessel” to include structures “capable of being used as a means of transportation on water”—making many offshore platforms qualify.

Covered Structures:

• Jack-up drilling rigs (Mobile Offshore Drilling Units/MODUs)
• Drillships
• Semi-submersible platforms
• Floating production storage and offloading units (FPSOs)

Autonomous Vessels: The Emerging Frontier

#

The Regulatory Landscape

#

Autonomous vessels represent the cutting edge of maritime automation—and a major liability unknown.

International Maritime Organization (IMO)

• Developing regulatory framework for commercial autonomous ships
• Non-mandatory adoption expected: 2025
• Mandatory enforcement expected: 2032 (amending existing conventions)

U.S. Coast Guard The Coast Guard regulates autonomous ships in U.S. waters but faces statutory constraints:

• Various statutes establish minimum crew requirements per vessel
• The Coast Guard lacks authority to waive these requirements (except for limited pilot programs like at-sea rocket recovery)
• Industry stakeholders report that inability to reduce crew makes autonomous technology development cost-prohibitive

The Mayflower Autonomous Ship Project

#

One of the most significant autonomous vessel projects, the Mayflower Autonomous Ship (MAS) demonstrated the potential and challenges of crewless vessels:

• Developed by ProMare, IBM, and partners starting in 2019
• Designed to cross the Atlantic Ocean without human intervention
• Uses AI and solar power for navigation and decision-making
• Applications in climate change research, ocean monitoring, and marine conservation

Liability Complexity

#

When autonomous vessels cause injury or damage, multiple parties may be jointly and severally liable:

Example Scenario: If a software error causes an autonomous vessel collision, liability could involve:

• The shipowner (failure to ensure proper systems)
• The software developer (defective algorithm)
• The AI provider (inadequate training data)
• The maintenance contractor (if sensor failure due to maintenance)

Building Your Maritime Robotics Injury Claim

#

Determine Which Law Applies

#

The first critical question: Are you a “seaman” under the Jones Act or a “harbor worker” under LHWCA?

Identify All Potential Defendants

#

Maritime robotics injuries often involve multiple liable parties:

For Port Automation Injuries:

• Port authority/terminal operator (employer—LHWCA)
• Crane/AGV manufacturer (product liability)
• Software/controls developer (product liability)
• System integrator (negligence, product liability)
• Maintenance contractor (negligence)

For Offshore Robotics Injuries:

• Vessel owner/operator (Jones Act negligence or LHWCA)
• ROV/AUV manufacturer (product liability)
• Platform operator (negligence)
• Equipment maintenance contractor (negligence)

Preserve Critical Evidence

#

Maritime robotics systems generate extensive data that can prove—or disprove—your claim:

Automated Port Equipment:

• Equipment telemetry and position data
• Operator logs and commands
• Maintenance records
• Safety sensor data
• Video surveillance (often time-limited retention)

Offshore Robotics:

• ROV/AUV operational logs
• Navigation and sensor data
• Maintenance records
• Dive logs and operation reports
• Vessel data (course, position, weather)

Time-Sensitive: Maritime companies often have short data retention policies. Send a preservation letter immediately to ensure critical evidence isn’t deleted.

Statute of Limitations

#

Frequently Asked Questions

#

Related Resources

#

Maritime Coverage

#

• Houston Port & Offshore Robotics — Port of Houston, offshore oil/gas, petrochemical robotics
• Offshore Injury Claims — Industrial automation and workplace robotics

Legal Framework

#

• Autonomous Vehicle Accident Claims — AV liability framework (applicable principles for autonomous vessels)
• State AI Liability Laws — Emerging state regulations

Partner Sites

#

• Maritime AI Standards — Professional standards for maritime AI systems
• Find a Maritime Injury Attorney — Law firm directory