With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the crew); Gilmore & Black, The Law of Admiralty § 6-20, at 325-26 (describing Congress’s abolition of the fellow-servant rule as an ill-fated attempt to abrogate The Osceola). We do not think the Seamen’s Act of 1915, now itself abrogated by the Jones Act, provided seamen with a cause of action against a master for negligence under the general maritime law. We note that Kennedy v. Gulf Crews, Inc., 750 F.Supp. 214, 215-16 (W.D.La.1990), the only other case that we know of to consider whether a master may be liable to a seaman for negligence under the general maritime law, rejected a similar argument by the plaintiff and held that a seaman does not have a cause of action against his master for negligence. Cf. California Home Brands, Inc. v. Ferreira, 871 F.2d 830, 834-35 (9th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). We hold that the general maritime law does

A: holding that the jones act did not operate to make negligent crew members liable to their employers for damages paid to other seamen under the jones act because crew members cannot sue each other for negligence
B: holding that a usbased company was an employer under the jones act
C: holding that jones act claimant against the government must comply with the terms of  2675
D: holding that the jones act provides an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction
A.