Hernandez, Yonny Perez v. PR Marine Construction, LLC

The recently filed case of *Hernandez, Yonny Perez v. PR Marine Construction, LLC* in the U.S. District Court for Tennessee, dated July 7, 2026, signals the commencement of litigation likely involving complex maritime law issues. While specific details of the complaint are not yet public, the nature of the parties suggests potential claims related to personal injury, negligence, or contractual disputes arising from marine construction activities. This article explores the probable legal framework governing such a dispute, including federal admiralty jurisdiction, the application of the Jones Act, and general maritime law principles, offering practitioners an early look at the legal landscape this case is expected to navigate.

The U.S. District Court for Tennessee has recorded the filing of a new civil action, *Hernandez, Yonny Perez v. PR Marine Construction, LLC*, on July 7, 2026. This case, still in its nascent stages, pits an individual plaintiff against a marine construction entity, immediately raising flags for practitioners engaged in maritime law, personal injury litigation, and construction disputes. Given the defendant's business, the litigation is almost certainly rooted in federal admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, which governs incidents occurring on navigable waters or involving maritime contracts.

Federal courts in the United States are vested with original subject matter jurisdiction over all civil cases of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, as stipulated by Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution and codified in 28 U.S.C. § 1333. This unique jurisdictional grant ensures uniformity in the application of maritime law across the nation. For a tort claim to fall under admiralty jurisdiction, it must typically occur on navigable waters and bear a significant relationship to traditional maritime activity. In Tennessee, major rivers such as the Mississippi, Tennessee, and Cumberland are considered navigable waters, meaning incidents occurring on them can trigger federal maritime law.

Within this framework, several key statutes and doctrines may apply. The Jones Act, formally Section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (46 U.S.C. § 30104), provides a cause of action for "seamen" who suffer personal injury or death in the course of their employment due to employer negligence. Complementing the Jones Act is the general maritime law, a body of federal common law that addresses issues such as vessel unseaworthiness, maintenance and cure for injured seamen, and negligence claims for non-seamen or passengers. For marine construction workers who do not qualify as "seamen," the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA), 33 U.S.C. § 901 et seq., may provide a federal workers' compensation scheme.

While the specific allegations in *Hernandez v. PR Marine Construction, LLC* remain undisclosed, the case name strongly suggests a dispute arising from operations within the marine construction industry. Such cases frequently involve personal injury claims, contractual disputes, or property damage. If the plaintiff, Yonny Perez, was a "seaman" in the employ of PR Marine Construction, LLC, a claim under the Jones Act for negligence would be a primary avenue for relief. The Jones Act imposes a relatively low burden of proof, often described as a "featherweight" standard, requiring only slight evidence that the employer's negligence contributed to the injury. Damages under the Jones Act can be substantial, including lost wages, medical expenses, and pain and suffering.

Alternatively, if the plaintiff is not deemed a "seaman" but was injured on a vessel or navigable waters, claims might proceed under general maritime law. This could include a claim for unseaworthiness, which holds a vessel owner strictly liable for injuries caused by any unsafe condition of the vessel, regardless of fault. General maritime law also permits negligence claims for non-seamen, though the burden of proof is typically higher than under the Jones Act. The interplay between these statutes and common law doctrines is often complex, requiring careful analysis of the plaintiff's employment status, the nature of the injury, and the circumstances surrounding the incident.

Marine construction projects, by their very nature, introduce additional layers of legal complexity. These projects involve unique permitting requirements, regulatory compliance, and contractual arrangements that can be subject to maritime law. Disputes can arise from contract negotiation and interpretation, delays, construction defects, or equipment failures. The application of maritime law to construction contracts with a waterborne component means that even seemingly terrestrial disputes can fall under federal admiralty jurisdiction. Furthermore, while federal courts exercising admiralty jurisdiction traditionally do not impanel juries, the Jones Act explicitly grants plaintiffs the right to a jury trial in personal injury actions, and the "saving to suitors" clause allows some maritime claims to be heard in state courts with a jury.

The filing of *Hernandez, Yonny Perez v. PR Marine Construction, LLC* marks the beginning of what could be a significant case for maritime practitioners in Tennessee and beyond. Given the early stage of the proceedings, the specific legal theories and factual allegations are yet to unfold. However, the involvement of a marine construction company strongly suggests the application of federal maritime law, potentially encompassing claims under the Jones Act, general maritime law for unseaworthiness or negligence, or contractual disputes unique to the marine construction industry.

Practitioners should closely monitor this case for developments, particularly regarding the court's interpretation and application of maritime statutes and doctrines in the context of marine construction. Understanding the nuances of admiralty jurisdiction, the distinctions between various maritime remedies, and the procedural aspects of federal maritime litigation will be crucial for attorneys representing clients in similar disputes. This case serves as a timely reminder of the specialized legal considerations inherent in the maritime sector and the importance of expert counsel in navigating its complexities.