Jones Act Cases - Seaman Cases, Decisions & Opinions
Law Office of William H. Lawson
|
Jones Act - Table of Contents
The Jones Act - Cases, Decisions and Opinions
II. PERSONS ENTITLED TO RECOVER - A. Seamen - 3. Particular Persons as Seamen
154. Aircraft occupantsPilot of
seaplane was not seaman for purposes of proceeding under 46
USCS Appx section 688. Hubschman v Antilles Airboats, Inc. (1977,
DC VI) 440 F Supp 828.
155. --Helicopter pilotsHelicopter pilot is not covered by Jones Act
-46 USCS Appx section 688- because aircraft is not vessel even
though pilot was transporting passengers to work on outer
continental shelf. Barger v Petroleum Helicopters, Inc.
(1982, CA5 Tex) 692 F2d 337, reh den (CA5 Tex) 698 F2d 1216
and cert den 461 US 958, 77 L Ed 2d 1316, 103 S Ct
2430.
Helicopter pilot,
performing his regular employment duty of transporting
offshore oil workers from mainland to drilling platforms in
Gulf, is not seaman under 46 USCS Appx section 688 inasmuch as
helicopter is designed primarily to travel in air and is
therefore not vessel. Reeves v Offshore Logistics, Inc.
(1983, CA5 La) 720 F2d 835.
156. --Fish spottersAlthough
airplane is not vessel under 46 USCS Appx section 688 and
therefore pilot would not be entitled to coverage under section
688, he is not excluded from Longshore and Harbor Workers
Compensation Act (33 USCS section 901 et seq.) benefits where as
part of his regular employment he flew airplane over Gulf in
order to locate schools of fish so that he could direct
fishing boats to them. Ward v Director, Office of Workers'
Compensation Programs, etc. (1982, CA5) 684 F2d 1114, cert
den 459 US 1170, 74 L Ed 2d 1013, 103 S Ct
815.
Aerial fish spotter,
killed in collision of two planes engaged in spotting fish,
was not seaman or member of crew of vessel and could not
recover under 46 USCS Appx section 688. Marino v Trawler Emil C,
Inc. (1966) 350 Mass 88, 213 NE2d 238, cert den 384 US 960,
16 L Ed 2d 673, 86 S Ct 1587.
157. Barge and scow workersMate
aboard barge is seaman entitled to recover under 46 USCS
Appx section 688 for injuries sustained in course of his
employment. Braen v Pfeifer Oil Transp. Co. (1959) 361 US
129, 4 L Ed 2d 191, 80 S Ct 247.
Sole employee aboard barge whose primary duty
had to do with maintaining vessel in seaworthy condition was
master or member of crew and entitled to maintain action
under 46 USCS Appx section 688. Bowen v Shamrock Towing Co. (1943,
CA2 NY) 139 F2d 674, 1944 AMC 39; Bryer v Erie R. Co. (1955)
1 Misc 2d 422, 145 NYS2d 847.
Jury was justified in finding that plaintiff
who was injured on barge while moving heavy metal pipe was
seaman or member of crew of vessel for purposes of 46 USCS
Appx section 688. Slatton v Martin K. Eby Constr. Co. (1974, CA8
Ark) 506 F2d 505, cert den 421 US 931, 44 L Ed 2d 88, 95 S
Ct 1657.
Error is not found
in action by bargeman under Jones Act (46 USCS Appx section 688)
to recover for injury sustained through unseaworthiness of
barge on which he was working where District Court finds
that bargeman was not seaman since records reflect that
bargeman, who performed certain duties on barges that came
to grain elevator, was never assigned to any particular
barge and had never worked on same barge more than once, was
assigned on random basis to various-owned barges as they
came to grain elevator for unloading, and never ate, slept
or performed any maintenance on any vessels in connection
with his employment. Jones v Mississippi River Grain
Elevator Co. (1983, CA5 La) 703 F2d 108, cert den 464 US
856, 78 L Ed 2d 157, 104 S Ct 175.
Rigging foreman on floating ship-repair
platform having no means of navigation cannot be said, as
matter of law, not to be seaman within meaning of Jones Act,
and question should be presented to jury. Gizoni v Southwest
Marine, Inc. (1990, CA9 Cal) 909 F2d
385.
Employee who was
welder on pile-driving barge in project to rebuild train
bridge was "seaman" on ground that barges could be
considered "vessels" where barges were moved extensively and
employee spent at least 85 percent of his time on barges.
Sharp v Wausau Ins. Cos. (1990, CA5 La) 917 F2d
885.
Member of carpenter's
union whose duty was to drive train used to repair bridge
from spud barge, equipped and inspected for navigation but
without means for self-propulsion, was not "seaman" for
purpose of Jones Act. Digiovanni v Traylor Bros., Inc.
(1992, CA1 RI) 959 F2d 1119, 1992 AMC
1521.
Worker on floating
work platform was not "seaman" under Jones Act where primary
purpose of barge was construction, not transportation, and
worker was not injured while barge was actually underway.
Hatch v Durocher Dock & Dredge (1994, CA6 Mich) 33 F3d
545, 1994 AMC 2188.
One
employed on barge used strictly to support engine and winch
holding in place pontoon line of pipe used in
suction-dredging operations was not seaman for purposes of
46 USCS Appx section 688. Andersen v Olympian Dredging Co. (1944,
DC Cal) 57 F Supp 827.
Plaintiff, whose duties as a bargeman included
the maneuvering of barges loaded with coal which were
delivered by tow boats on the Ohio River to the defendant's
dock facilities, such maneuvering consisting of tying up the
delivered barges by means of rope to other barges in a
designated area, inspecting barges for leaks, placing
navigation lines on them, and selecting many loaded barges,
one barge at a time, for emptying by a shore-mounted crane,
was seaman for purposes of 46 USCS Appx section 688. Mach v
Pennsylvania R. Co. (1962, WD Pa) 207 F Supp 233, affd (CA3
Pa) 317 F2d 761.
Plaintiff
injured while working on defendant's wooden barge moored in
navigable waters in Cambridge, Maryland was not seaman under
46 USCS Appx section 688 where approximately 90 percent of work
which plaintiff performed for defendant during 9-month
period of employment was done while plaintiff was on land
and remaining 10 percent was done while on one or more of
defendant's pieces of floating equipment located on
navigable waters. Lewis v Roland E. Trego & Sons, Inc.
(1973, DC Md) 359 F Supp 1130, affd in part and vacated in
part on other grounds (CA4 Md) 501 F2d
372.
Plaintiff employed to
work upon barge was seaman within meaning of 46 USCS Appx section
688 where plaintiff's duties aboard barge were (1) to hook
up hoses for discharging or loading oil; (2) to sweep tanks
at end of discharging oil therefrom; and (3) to tie up barge
with tug or pier. Spearing v Manhattan Oil Transp. Corp.
(1974, SD NY) 375 F Supp 764, 19 FR Serv 2d
33.
Jury would be entitled
to conclude that plaintiff was member of crew of vessel
where plaintiff was barge man at dock where coal was
transferred from river barges to railroad cars, evidence was
clear that he was employed in aid of navigation, plaintiff
was employed to maintain each vessel which was docked at
pier on which he was injured and his duties could be found
to have constituted duties normally performed by ship's
crew. Mietla v Warner Co. (1975, Ed Pa) 387 F Supp
937.
In negligence action
brought in state court under Jones Act by scowman, action is
not removable to federal district court, where scowman was
seaman under Jones Act in that he: (1) worked three days
"on" and three days "off" scow, (2) supplied his own food
aboard scow, (3) handled transfer of scow lines from dredge
to tugboat, (4) remained on scow while it was towed ten
miles to sea and controlled dumping of scow's load, (5)
handled lines at sea and again in transfer back to dredge
upon return to harbor, and (6) performed necessary
maintenance including checking fuel and oil, and maintaining
and operating running lights; plaintiff's presence aboard
vessel was neither transient nor fortuituous and his tasks
were central rather than peripheral to vessel's operation
and mission. Demarac v American Dredging Co. (1980, SD NY)
486 F Supp 853.
Operator of
scow was seaman within meaning of 46 USCS Appx section 688 where
he had charge of totality of functions performed aboard
vessel, lived on vessel during his work periods and had been
assigned to that scow for one month and similar scows for 7
years. Demarac v American Dredging Co. (1980, SD NY) 486 F
Supp 853.
Injured
sanitation employee will not be declared seaman
notwithstanding jury's determination that he is not seaman
eligible to sue under 46 USCS Appx section 688, even though there
was significant amount of evidence that he was member of
crew of people who spent substantial amount of work time
furthering mission of fleet of vessels on navigable waters,
because jury reasonably could have found that member of
digger gang for garbage barges was land-based worker
ineligible to sue as seaman. Leotis v New York (1993, SD NY)
818 F Supp 63.
Barge
worker's motion for finding of seaman status and entitlement
to maintenance and cure under Jones Act, 46 USCS Appx section 688,
is denied, where backhoe operator from rock barge was
injured while on another barge when cable of crane broke and
struck him, since worker's permanent attachment was to barge
used to transport rocks and injury occurred on barge used as
work platform, worker's activity on barge where injury
occurred did not contribute to his barge's task of
transporting rocks, and barge used as work platform was not
vessel in navigation for purposes of Jones Act. Taylor v
Cooper River Constructors (1993, DC SC) 830 F Supp
300.
Person working on
barge is seaman within meaning of 46 USCS Appx section 688 even
when barge has no motive power of its own. Brown v L. A.
Wells Const. Co. (1944) 143 Ohio St 580, 28 Ohio Ops 486, 56
NE2d 451.
158. Bridge workersEvidence was
insufficient as matter of law to support finding that
deceased steelworker who died in fall from superstructure of
bridge being constructed over Mississippi River was, at time
of his death, seaman entitled to invoke jurisdiction under
46 USCS Appx section 688, where credible testimony of witnesses,
taken in light most favorable to plaintiff, established at
best that decedent may have spent portion of his time
unloading steel from service barges anchored to bank of
River and may have assisted in bringing service barges to
shore from their temporary holding stations a short distance
upriver, but there was no evidence that decedent had more
than transitory contact with water and it was undisputed
that his fatal fall occurred well away from water's edge and
that his death was unrelated to any vessel or water-based
activities. Holland v Allied Structural Steel Co. (1976, CA5
Miss) 539 F2d 476, reh den (CA5 Miss) 542 F2d 1173 and cert
den 429 US 1105, 51 L Ed 2d 557, 97 S Ct
1136.
Laborer who was
employed in demolition of bridge and who, in course of his
employment, was assigned to work loading scrap aboard barge
and did so work for part of only one day prior to injury
which occured while he was being lowered from bridge into
barge was not seaman for purposes of 46 USCS Appx section 688.
Whittington v Sewer Constr. Co. (1976, CA4 W Va) 541 F2d
427.
Jurisdiction was not
present for claim under 46 USCS Appx section 688 where decedent
drowned in river when scaffold upon which decedent was
standing while painting bridge gave way, since no vessel was
actually involved in accident, and decedent was painter and
not seaman within meaning of 46 USCS Appx section 688. Shows v
Harber (1978, CA8 Ark) 575 F2d 1253, 25 FR Serv 2d
601.
In action by iron
worker who had been hired as foreman in connection with
construction of part of bridge, against his employer under
Jones Act for injuries sustained while he was working on
construction barge owned by his employer, trial court
properly sustained employer's motion for summary judgment on
ground that plaintiff was not "seaman" under Jones Act,
although barge was clearly "vessel in navigation," being
used to transport steel materials on river and not having
been withdrawn from waters at time of plaintiff's injury;
plaintiff failed to show he was member of barge's crew,
where only evidence suggesting that he contributed to
transportation function of barge was statement that he might
have thrown or fastened some mooring lines; fact that he
performed iron work construction on navigable waters aboard
barge did not make him member of crew charged with operation
and welfare of barge as means of transport on water. Johnson
v John F. Beasley Constr. Co. (1984, CA7 Ill) 742 F2d 1054,
cert den (US) 84 L Ed 2d 328, 105 S Ct 1180 and (disagreed
with Barrett v Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. (CA5 La) 781 F2d
1067).
Iron worker hired as
foreman and charged with construction of part of bridge, who
threw mooring line to barge used to transport steel on
river, is not seaman under 46 USCS Appx section 688, since his
task was insignificant with respect to operation and welfare
of barge and he was not assigned to barge. Johnson v John F.
Beasley Constr. Co. (1984, CA7 Ill) 742 F2d 1054, cert den
(US) 84 L Ed 2d 328, 105 S Ct 1180 and (disagreed with
Barrett v Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. (CA5 La) 781 F2d
1067).
Pile drivers,
workers whose primary purpose was to aid building of bridge
rather than to aid navigation of vessel, were not "seamen"
within meaning of Jones Act. Yoash v McLean Contracting Co.
(1990, CA4 Md) 907 F2d 1481.
Plaintiff-construction worker is not entitled
to status of Jones Act seaman and therefore cannot sue for
personal injuries under Jones Act where plaintiff had worked
on land at bridge construction site for approximately two
months before accident but only began working on or near
river barge that was site of accident three days before
accident, where plaintiff's only vessel-related work
consisted of preparing bridge girders on barge for use in
construction of bridge, where there was no evidence that
plaintiff ate or slept on board barge, and where plaintiff's
transitory duties aboard barge were not related to any
maritime activity but instead were related only to
construction of bridge; evidence of sporadic contacts for
brief periods of time with waterborne vessels is
insufficient to support finding of seaman status, rather, in
order to meet requirement that worker perform substantial
part of his work aboard vessel to have seaman status it must
be shown that worker performed significant part of his work
aboard ship with at least some degree of regularity and
conformity. Ehrhardt v B&G Crane Service, Inc., (1980,
ED La) 492 F Supp 425.
In
action brought under Jones Act by bridge repair worker who
was injured when he fell from moored barge into cofferdam,
there was sufficient evidence from which jury could conclude
that worker was seaman within meaning of Jones Act where,
though worker performed bulk of work in cofferdam, he was
"permanently" assigned to barge in that all equipment needed
for bridge repair job was on barge, worker and other crew
members ate lunch on barge, all workers remained on it when
it was moved from place to place, and injured worker
performed minor tasks on barge, including some of which
aided in navigation function of vessel. Allen v Mobile
Interstate Piledrivers (1985, Ala) 475 So 2d
530.
Where employee whose
duty it was to operate draw section of bridge over navigable
stream was injured in performance of his duties by falling
into waters below, prima facie he was not engaged in
maritime activity at time of his injury and state workmen's
compensation act applied. Brunswick v King (1941) 192 Ga 51,
14 SE2d 461, ans conformed to 65 Ga App 44, 14 SE2d
760.
159. CarpentersShip carpenter
engaged on completed vessel afloat on navigable water,
though not sailor, was seaman for purposes of 46 USCS Appx section
688. Kuhlman v W. & A. Fletcher Co. (1927, CA3 NJ) 20
F2d 465.
Summary judgment
was not warranted where jury could reasonably conclude that
plaintiff, hired as carpenter out of carpentry union to work
on construction projects but who occasionally, and at time
of injury was, engaged in work typically done by deckhands,
was seaman for Jones Act purpose. Delange v Dutra Constr.,
Co. (1999, CA9 Hawaii) 183 F3d 916, 1999 AMC 1864, request
gr (1999, BAP9 Cal) 99 CDOS 4576, 99 Daily Journal DAR
5877.
Carpenter injured
while temporarily engaged in repairing barge moored to river
landing could not sue under 46 USCS Appx section 688 since he was
not member of crew of vessel. Finnie v Pittsburgh Coal Co.
(1951, DC Pa) 97 F Supp 721.
Carpenter's helper, injured while working on
drilling rig, was not "seaman" within 46 USCS Appx section 688 in
that he was assigned to various jobs on rotating basis, was
never permanently assigned to specified vessel or group of
vessels, and he was injured while working on drilling rig
that was neither owned, chartered, nor leased by his
employer. Fontenot v Halliburton Co. (1967, WD La) 264 F
Supp 45.
Ship carpenter
employed by dry dock company in repairing vessel moored in
navigable waters is not seaman. Rogisich v Union Dry Dock
& Repair Co. (1930) 106 NJL 591, 150 A
670.
Marine carpenter,
employed by ship repair corporation, injured while working
aboard vessel was shore-side employee and not seaman covered
by 46 USCS Appx section 688. Sage v United States Lines (1974, 1st
Dept) 44 App Div 2d 802, 355 NYS2d 153.
160. Construction workersPlaintiff was not sufficiently connected with
employer's barge to be member of crew or seaman within
meaning of 46 USCS Appx section 688 where, although plaintiff was
injured while working aboard barge when scaffold overturned,
plaintiff had no seaman's papers, was not assigned to any
vessel in employer's fleet, rarely accompanied barge as it
was being moved from one job to another, slept ashore and
performed 90 percent of his work on land, and went aboard
vessels only when his construction work required him to be
on water. Lewis v Roland E. Trego & Sons (1974, CA4 Md)
501 F2d 372.
Where
plaintiff fell from pier face to platform 15 feet below
while doing cement form work in connection with construction
of concrete pier, plaintiff was normally picked up by tug
and transferred to 38 by 120 foot steel-hulled barge
utilized in defendant's construction efforts, major part of
plaintiff's work was conducted on barge, it had snowed
heavily prior to day of accident, and bridge surfaces were
fairly deep in snow on day of accident, questions whether
plaintiff was permanently assigned to barge and whether
defendant was negligent should have gone to jury; thus,
District Court erred in directing verdict for defendant.
Bennett v Perini Corp. (1975, CA1 Mass) 510 F2d 114
(disagreed with Johnson v John F. Beasley Constr. Co. (CA7
Ill) 742 F2d 1054, cert den (US) 84 L Ed 2d 328, 105 S Ct
1180 and (disagreed with Barrett v Chevron, U.S.A., Inc.
(CA5 La) 781 F2d 1067)).
46
USCS Appx section 688 does not cover construction worker employed
in non-maritime construction, although the nature and
location of his work occasionally required him to work in
and around navigable waters, and aboard one or more pieces
of floating equipment. Johnson v American Pile Driving Co.
(1975, WD Wash) 397 F Supp 11.
Construction company's motion to dismiss
employee's Jones Act claim is granted, where employee was
nothing more than land-based construction worker hired to
operate crane on barge in order to repair transmission line
tower, because employee did not assist primarily in
navigation and was not Jones Act "seaman." Bryant v Gates
Constr. Co. (1990, DC Del) 735 F Supp
602.
Construction worker
was not seaman under 46 USCS Appx section 688(a), where worker was
injured while drilling holes in wood pilings as part of boat
dock construction project, and although his work history
showed involvement in marine construction projects, he was
involved only insofar as his welding or pile-driving skills
were needed, much of work was performed on land, worker was
assigned on a project basis, not to a specific vessel or
group of vessels, and he always returned home to eat and
sleep, driving back to job site each day. Snowden v
Woodington Corp. (1997, ED Va) 963 F Supp 526, 1997 AMC
2167, vacated, on reh, summary judgment den (1997, ED Va)
1997 US Dist LEXIS 10428.
Laborer working on barge, helping to construct
wooden mat at foundation for river dike was not entitled to
compensation under 46 USCS Appx section 688. Bowery v Hartford
Acc. & Indem. Co. (1947) 356 Mo 545, 202 SW2d 790, cert
den 332 US 838, 92 L Ed 410, 68 S Ct 210, reh den 332 US
849, 92 L Ed 420, 68 S Ct 342.
Where employee was engaged in construction of
marina, and he sustained injuries while on raft carrying
timber to marina, he could not recover under 46 USCS Appx section
688 because movement of lumber to marina aboard raft was not
activity in direct aid of commerce and navigation, but only
marginal and incidental to it. Garrisey v West Shore Marina
Associates (1970) 2 Wash App 718, 469 P2d
590.
161. Cooks, stewards, and other mess personnelWaitress employed on vessel making trips on
Lake Michigan was seaman for purposes of 46 USCS Appx section 688.
Buford v Cleveland & Buffalo S.S. Co. (1951, CA7 Ill)
192 F2d 196.
46 USCS Appx section
688 did not cover injuries to mess boy while on dock
assisting to unload cargo. Hughes v Alaska S. S. Co. (1923,
DC Wash) 287 F 427.
Employee of caterer contracted to provide
supplies for submersible drilling barge, injured by slipping
on barge while storing supplies under direction of barge
foreman was member of crew for purposes of 46 USCS Appx section
688. Hebert v California Oil Co. (1967, WD La) 280 F Supp
754.
Catering hand who,
without compensation, took command of vessel's galley to
prepare meal for its crew while vessel was transporting him
to drilling platform where he was to work was not "seaman"
under Jones Act (46 USCS Appx section 688). Rutledge v A & P
Boat Rentals, Inc. (1986, WD La) 633 F Supp
654.
Woman's action seeking
maintenance and cure, wages until end of voyage, and damages
for failure to pay maintenance and cure is dismissed as
matter of law, even though she was injured aboard vessel
provided by Navy to house and feed oil spill workers, where
her sole job was to prepare food for workers, because woman
performed no function relating to navigation of ship, was
more akin to cook on "floating hotel," and thus was not
"seaman" for purposes of Jones Act (46 USCS Appx section 688).
Johnnie v Nana Dev. Corp. (1991, DC Alaska) 780 F Supp
669.
Stewardess is entitled
to benefits of 46 USCS Appx section 688. Gladstone v Matson
Navigation Co. (1954) 124 Cal App 2d 493, 269 P2d
37.
46 USCS Appx section 688 may
be applicable in favor of cook though vessel is not common
carrier. Ziegler v Alaska Portland Packers' Ass'n (1931) 135
Or 359, 296 P 38.
162. Crane or derrick workersDeckhand on board hoister, anchored in harbor,
which was not self-propelled and was engaged in removing
pilings in riverbed was seaman for purposes of 46 USCS Appx
section 688. Schantz v American Dredging Co. (1943, CA3 Pa) 138
F2d 534.
Claim falls within
scope of Jones Act, 46 USCS Appx section 688, where plaintiff was
employed as fireman on floating derrick in York River in
Virginia and he sustained injury in course of employment.
Summerlin v Massman Const. Co. (1952, CA4 Va) 199 F2d
715.
Plaintiff, injured on
floating crane when electromagnet used in loading scrap
metal on to freighters slid and crushed his foot, was not 46
USCS Appx section 688 seaman; fact that plaintiff handled lines to
move floating crane did not require finding of seaman's
status; on other hand, fact that plaintiff ate and slept
ashore did not necessitate finding that status of seaman did
not exist. Salgado v M. J. Rudolph Corp. (1975, CA2 NY) 514
F2d 750.
Worker who was
injured while working as crane operator aboard crane barge
on construction project in harbor and who had only
transitory connection with barge was not "seaman" under
Jones Act. Cabral v Healy Tibbits Builders (1997, CA9
Hawaii) 118 F3d 1363, 97 CDOS 5378, 97 Daily Journal DAR
8726, 1997 AMC 2419, amd (1997, CA9 Hawaii) 1997 US App
LEXIS 28530 and reh, en banc, den (Oct 15,
1997).
Crane operator was
not "seaman" for purpose of Jones Act where he was
land-based worker who had only transitory or sporadic
connection to barge on which he was hired to operate crane,
not as crew member. Cabral v Healy Tibbits Builders (1997,
CA9 Hawaii) 128 F3d 1289, 97 Daily Journal DAR
12902.
Jones Act (46 USCS
Appx section 688) applies to action by crane operator, where
operator (1) was member of crew assigned to "vessel in
navigation" and (2) greater part of duties were performed on
vessel, notwithstanding that injury occurred on dock away
from vessel, because operator's duties were in "aid of
navigation" and thus operator was "seaman." Gallop v
Pittsburgh Sand & Gravel, Inc. (1988, WD Pa) 696 F Supp
1061.
Genuine issue of
material fact precluding summary judgment existed as to
whether crane operator qualified for seaman status where
crane operated by plaintiff was located on barge which was
not self-propelled, but was moved from various points within
terminal facility by tugs and crane was used for loading and
unloading of vessels and other barges. Burrle v
International Marine Terminals (1986, La App 4th Cir) 485 So
2d 1006.
163. DiversCommercial diver, who
embodies traditional and inevitably maritime task of
navigation, has legal protection of seaman when substantial
part of his duties are performed on vessel; it is inherently
maritime nature of tasks performed and perils faced by his
profession, and not fortuity of his tenure on vessel from
which he makes particular dive on which he was injured, that
makes him seaman; offshore oil field diver was seaman for
purposes of section 688, where more than 95 percent of diver's
work was performed at sea, and where he, along with various
other crew members, ate and slept aboard vessel. Wallace v
Oceaneering International (1984, CA5 La) 727 F2d
427.
Trial court's
determination that diver was seaman was not erroneous where
trial court found that diver spent 90 percent of work-time
aboard identifiable fleet of barges and, as commercial
diver, worker faced tasks and perils of inherently maritime
nature. Pickle v International Oilfield Divers, Inc. (1986,
CA5 La) 791 F2d 1237.
Diver/dockbuilder who was employed in variety
of marine construction jobs and who was killed while on
board heavy-lifting derrick barge in process of removing
damaged mooring platform was harbor worker, not "seaman,"
under Jones Act. Bundens v J.E. Brenneman Co. (1995, CA3) 46
F3d 292, 1995 AMC 1330.
Professional diver is peculiarly, and totally,
subject to perils of sea and thus may, under special
circumstances, qualify as seaman without showing requisite
degree of temporal connection. Roberts v Cardinal Servs.
(2001, CA5 La) 266 F3d 368.
Diver who is regularly employed as seaman and
performs majority of his work from vessel is covered by 46
USCS Appx section 688 even though injured while on land assisting
in building diving training tank for underwater use. Taylor
v Packer Diving & Salvage Co. (1971, ED La) 342 F Supp
365, affd (CA5 La) 457 F2d 512, reh den (CA5 La) 471 F2d
650.
Question of fact was
presented whether professional hard hat diver, killed after
having dived from barge into 35 feet of water to repair
underwater sewer outfall, was seaman within meaning of 46
USCS Appx section 688. Holland v Healy Tibbitts Constr. Co. (1974,
DC Hawaii) 379 F Supp 192.
Leverman aboard dredge was not seaman under
Jones Act (46 USCS Appx section 688) at time he was killed in dive
to inspect dredge's underwater equipment at request of
employer as such activity was separate and independent from
his duties as leverman. Smith v Eastern Seaboard Pile
Driving, Inc. (1978, DC NY) 1978 AMC
2068.
Injured diver does
not qualify as "seaman" under Jones Act (46 USCS Appx section
688), where he performed 5 different jobs during 3 months of
employment with company, working for 3 different customers
of company on variety of different vessels, because his
diving activity was in no way related to movement of
vessels, could not be considered traditional seaman's
duties, and was also not performed for "fleet" of vessels
under common ownership or control. Ashley v Epic Divers,
Inc. (1991, ED La) 818 F Supp 172, affd without op (CA5 La)
976 F2d 730, cert den (US) 122 L Ed 2d 786, 113 S Ct
1415.
Professional diver's
survivors' suit against his employer need not be denied
summarily, where diver drowned in mishap during salvage
operation, and in 9 years he had worked on 53 different
vessels owned by 37 different companies, because mere fact
that diver was not permanently assigned to particular vessel
or to fleet of vessels does not preclude his status as
"seaman." Hall v Professional Divers (1994, ED La) 865 F
Supp 363.
Freelance
commercial diver was not seaman within meaning of 46 USCS
Appx section 688, where diver was injured while diving from crane
barge engaged in installation of artificial reef, because,
although his duties contributed to function of barge and
accomplishment of its mission, and his connection to barge
was substantial in nature, it was not substantial in
duration, considering that diver's assignment to barge was
only for 10 days with no view toward more permanent
relationship. Foulk v Donjon Marine Co. (1997, DC NJ) 961 F
Supp 692.
As matter of law,
diver who works from anchored floating barge is not
precluded from "seaman" status under 46 USCS Appx section 688.
Pederson v Powell-Duffryn Terminals, Inc. (1999, DC NJ) 34 F
Supp 2d 915.
Deep sea diver
injured while working for employer engaged in offshore oil
drilling is protected by 46 USCS Appx section 688 as matter of
law. Howard v Global Marine, Inc. (1972, 2d Dist) 28 Cal App
3d 809, 105 Cal Rptr 50.
164. Dockbuilders and piledriver crewsWorkmen operating piledriver on scow afloat in
navigable river in construction of dock were seamen for
purposes of 46 USCS Appx section 688. George Leary Const. Co. v
Matson (1921, CA4 Va) 272 F 461.
Member of dock-building gang was not member of
crew of floating pile driver, where no quarters were
maintained for gang, and gang returned home each night.
Petition of Spearin, Preston & Burrows, Inc. (1951, CA2
NY) 190 F2d 684.
It could
not be said, as matter of law, that injured dockbuilder who
worked primarily from barge was not crew-member and such
question was for jury where (1) substantial part of
dockbuilder's work was performed on deck of barge (2) on day
of accident dockbuilder spent at least 4 hours aboard barge
and (3) one of primary functions of barge was to provide
work area for construction of docks. Stafford v Perini Corp.
(1973, CA1 Mass) 475 F2d 507.
Dock builder injured while on board dredge as
one of its crew was within protection of 46 USCS Appx section 688.
Walsh v New York (1936, DC NY) 1936 AMC
1846.
Pile driver plaintiff
is not seaman under Jones Act because pile driver's duties
did not serve naturally and primarily as aid to navigation
and only incidentally assisted in barge's movement from one
location to another, since his work was directed toward
maintaining land-based utility lines. Presley v Healy
Tibbits Constr. Co. (1986, DC Md) 646 F Supp
203.
Employee of
subcontractor is not "seaman" under Jones Act (46 USCS Appx
section 688), where it is undisputed that materials barge on which
employee's accident allegedly occurred was being used
primarily as work platform for at least 2-month period prior
to his accident, because employee was dockbuilder working on
barge, not seaman whose work involved spending substantial
time aboard vessel in navigation contributing to its
function or mission. O'Hara v Weeks Marine (1996, ED NY) 928
F Supp 257.
Workmen on
piledriver mounted on scow was seaman within meaning of 46
USCS Appx section 688. Pfister v Bagdett Const. Co. (1933, Mo App)
65 SW2d 137.
Fireman on
pile driver barge engaged in improvement work on Missouri
river was not seaman engaged in navigation and commerce on
navigable stream, hence his remedy for injuries received was
under state act rather than 46 USCS Appx section 688. Belk v
Massman Const. Co. (1937) 133 Neb 303, 275 NW 76, cert den
303 US 641, 82 L Ed 1101, 58 S Ct 647.
165. Dredging crewsHandyman
employed to assist with dredging operations injured while
placing signal lanterns from dredge in shed on opposite bank
was member of crew of dredge and consequently entitled to
benefits of Jones Act. Senko v La Crosse Dredging Corp.
(1957) 352 US 370, 1 L Ed 2d 404, 77 S Ct 415, reh den 353
US 931, 1 L Ed 2d 724, 77 S Ct 716.
Testimony tending to show that dredge handyman
was employed almost solely on dredge, that his duty was
primarily to maintain dredge during anchorage and for future
trips, and that he had significant navigation function when
dredge was put in transit, constituted sufficient evidence
to support jury's finding that he was member of dredge's
crew. Senko v La Crosse Dredging Corp. (1957) 352 US 370, 1
L Ed 2d 404, 77 S Ct 415, reh den 353 US 931, 1 L Ed 2d 724,
77 S Ct 716.
Employee
working on dredge is seaman entitled to sue under 46 USCS
Appx section 688. Kibadeaux v Standard Dredging Co. (1936, CA5
Tex) 81 F2d 670, 1936 AMC 254, cert den 299 US 549, 81 L Ed
404, 57 S Ct 12; Melanson v Bay State Dredging &
Contracting Co. (1943, DC Mass) 62 F Supp
482.
Where plaintiff's
duties aboard a dredge included handling and maintaining
earth-conveying pipelines, tending lines of dredge and its
various auxiliary vessels, and posting of necessary lights,
he was, as matter of law, member of crew for purposes of 46
USCS Appx section 688 and therefore, excluded from coverage of the
Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act -33 USCS
section 901 et seq.-. Lawrence v Norfolk Dredging Co. (1963, CA4
Va) 319 F2d 805, 1964 AMC 362, cert den 375 US 952, 11 L Ed
2d 313, 84 S Ct 443.
Member
of crew of dredge cleaning out repair slips of shipyard on
banks of navigable stream was not seaman within protection
of 46 USCS Appx section 688. Woods v Merrill-Stevens Dry Dock
& Repair Co. (1936, DC Fla) 14 F Supp 208, 1936 AMC
879.
Mate on dredge in
navigable waters was seaman notwithstanding fact that dredge
had no locomotive power of its own. Chesser v General
Dredging Co. (1957, DC Fla) 150 F Supp
592.
Member of crew of
dredge whose duties consisted of assisting in operation of
dredge and maintenance thereof and assisting in navigation
and operation of tender vessels was seaman for purposes of
46 USCS Appx section 688 even though he slept ashore every night
since owner did not provide sleeping quarters onboard.
Williamson v Western-Pacific Dredging Corp. (1969, DC Or)
304 F Supp 509, affd (CA9 Or) 441 F2d 65, cert den 404 US
851, 30 L Ed 2d 91, 92 S Ct 90.
Person injured while member of dredge crew
engaged in filling land for public park, not concerned with
navigation, could not maintain action under 46 USCS Appx section
688. Covington v Standard Dredging Corp. (1952, Fla) 61 So
2d 644.
Oiler on
nonself-propelled dredge injured while dredge was operating
in harbor could maintain action under 46 USCS Appx section 688.
Arundel Corp. v Jasper (1959) 219 Md 519, 150 A2d 415, 1961
AMC 2034.
Dredge cutting
channel across land is not engaged in maritime work, even
though it is followed, as result of its work, by navigable
channel, and employee on such dredge may not sue as seaman
under 46 USCS Appx section 688; opposite would be true if dredge
were deepening existing navigable channel. Orleans Dredging
Co. v Frazie (1935) 173 Miss 882, 161 So 699, cert den 296
US 653, 80 L Ed 465, 56 S Ct 383 and later app 179 Miss 188,
173 So 431 and later app 182 Miss 193, 180 So
816.
166. --Sand and gravel operationsEmployees of defendant engaged in removing sand
by barges to shore were members of crew where they lived on
dredge free of charge both day and night. Wilkes v
Mississippi River Sand & Gravel Co. (1953, CA6 Tenn) 202
F2d 383, 1953 AMC 846, cert den 346 US 817, 98 L Ed 344, 74
S Ct 29.
Where defendant
excavated canal from river over its own property to its sand
and gravel pit, employee on defendant's sand and gravel
processing plant constructed on barges fixed to bottom of
wet pit by means of spuds, or pilings, driven into ground,
who was injured while working on sand and gravel plant was
not member of crew of vessel and was not entitled to
maintain action under 46 USCS Appx section 688. Tuder v Material
Service Corp. (1959, DC Ill) 177 F Supp
71.
Employer and
independent contractor are denied summary judgment on
sandblaster's status as Jones Act seaman under 46 USCS Appx
688 in action for injuries sustained while on fixed platform
off Louisiana coast, where sworn deposition testimony of
sandblaster raised sufficient genuine issues of material
fact. Funderburk v Maintenance Associates, Inc. (1986, ED
La) 640 F Supp 813.
167. --Temporary assignments off dredgeStatus of libellant, who was "seaman" on dredge
did not change when he was sent by respondent, in course of
his employment, to work on two carfloats which were to be
added to respondent's fleets as pontoons or workboats and
which had no crew of their own. Tyndall v Conduit &
Foundation Corp. (1959, DC Pa) 169 F Supp 299, affd (CA3 Pa)
269 F2d 947, 1960 AMC 1656.
Plaintiff permanently assigned to dredge as
oiler but who served as deckhand on tank vessel was seaman
for purposes of 46 USCS Appx section 688. Brinegar v San Ore
Constr. Co. (1969, ED Ark) 302 F Supp
630.
168. DeckhandsInjured employee
who is not articled seaman and mainly doing work of laborer
or deckhand on dredge may maintain action under 46 USCS Appx
section 688, and is excluded from Longshore and Harbor Workers'
Act (33 USCS section 901 et seq.). Maryland Casualty Co. v
Lawson (1938, CA5 Fla) 94 F2d 190, 1938 AMC
300.
Deckhand of dredge is
seaman within 46 USCS Appx section 688 even though he lived and
took his meals ashore. Gahagan Const. Corp. v Armao (1948,
CA1 Mass) 165 F2d 301, cert den 333 US 876, 92 L Ed 1152, 68
S Ct 905.
Deckhand employed
on stripper dredge engaged in removing topsoil, mud, and
clay from highlands abutting river was not seaman within
meaning of 46 USCS Appx section 688. Beddoo v Smoot Sand &
Gravel Corp. (1942) 76 App DC 39, 128 F2d
608.
Deckhand on dredge
operated in navigable waters could maintain action under 46
USCS Appx section 688 for injuries sustained while assisting in
routine repairs of dredge. Early v American Dredging Co.
(1951, DC Pa) 101 F Supp 393.
169. Drilling crewsTerm "seaman"
as used in 46 USCS Appx section 688 is applicable to workman on
special-purpose structure, such as floating drilling
platform, submersible barge, derrick, or dredge, if he
serves in capacity which contributes to accomplishment of
function or mission of structure, even though he has nothing
to do with navigation, as such, nothing to do with operation
or welfare of vessel in sense that vessel is means of
transport by water, and is not member of ship's company in
sense that a ship's cook or carpenter are necessary or
appropriate members of ship's complement. Offshore Co. v
Robison (1959, CA5 La) 266 F2d 769, 75 ALR2d 1296 (disagreed
with Johnson v John F. Beasley Constr. Co. (CA7 Ill) 742 F2d
1054, cert den (US) 84 L Ed 2d 328, 105 S Ct 1180 and
(disagreed with Barrett v Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. (CA5 La) 781
F2d 1067)).
Plaintiff,
injured while working as wire man on drilling barge, was not
seaman under 46 USCS Appx section 688 where work as wire line
operator did not require him to be assigned to any
particular drilling barge in performance of his duties and
he was to be on vessel only for two days in performing his
work. Cox v Otis Engineering Corp. (1973, CA5 La) 474 F2d
613.
One criteria for
determining seaman status under Jones Act is that vessel be
in navigation, and this determination is, except in rare
instances, question of fact; thus, in action by injured
worker against his employer under Jones Act for injuries
sustained while he was working on uncompleted drilling rig,
which was tried before district court, question whether
worker was seaman was not question of law, but was question
of fact, and district court did not err in finding that
drilling rig was not vessel and was not in navigation, where
partially completed rig had been transferred to worker's
employer for completion, and where court found that "rigging
up" done by employer entailed completion of necessary
construction and equipment for rig's use as drilling rig.
Fredieu v Rowan Cos. (1984, CA5 La) 738 F2d 651, 39 FR Serv
2d 1147.
Oil well inspector
who was injured while on board drilling vessel was seaman
under Jones Act as matter of law, although he was employed
by oil company which had hired operator of drilling vessel
to drill offshore oil well, where inspector was permanently
assigned to vessel and where his work contributed to mission
of vessel; i.e., drilling of oil well. Tullos v Resource
Drilling, Inc. (1985, CA5 La) 750 F2d
380.
In Jones Act action
against employer brought by worker injured while working as
motorman on stationary oil drilling rig, trial court did not
err in directing verdict on issue of seaman status in favor
of employer where worker's primary responsibilities
concerned drilling operations on drilling rig and where,
although worker stored some of his tools and lived aboard
adjacently anchored vessel, he did not perform significant
part of his work aboard such vessel with "at least some
degree of regularity and continuity." Golden v Rowan Cos.
(1985, CA5 La) 778 F2d 1022.
In action by welder's helper under Jones Act
arising from back injury sustained when he was transferred
in suspended personnel basket between crew boat and barge,
and for exacerbation of such injury sustained while lifting
section of pipe while standing on barge, trial court erred
in concluding that worker was member of crew of vessel; such
determination should have been made in context of his entire
employment with his employer where helper's permanent job
assignment during such term of employment had not changed.
Since record revealed that helper's one year employment
consisted of 70 to 80 percent work on platforms and no more
than 20 to 30 percent work on vessels, helper did not
perform substantial portion of his work aboard vessel and
thus failed to establish he was member of crew. Barrett v
Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. (1986, CA5 La) 781 F2d
1067.
Wireline operator
whose duties included surveying oil wells and operating
wireline and steering tools on shore and on movable drilling
riggs offshore, whose employer did not own or lease offshore
rigs or vessels but was independent contractor sending
workers to any concern requesting its services, who spent
75-80 percent of time offshore working on special purpose
drilling rigs, who ate and slept aboard drilling rigs, who
when 4 years with employer worked for 23 different companies
aboard movable rigs and who did not possess seaman's papers
or coastguard license, failed to establish that he was
permanently assigned to identifiable vessel or fleet of
vessels as required to state Jones Act Claim. Lirette v N.L.
Sperry Sun, Inc. (1987, CA5 La) 831 F2d
554.
Person employed as
wireline operator whose duties included surveying oil wells
and operating wireline and steering tools both on shore and
on movable drilling rigs offshore, and who, during his
four-year employment, spent 75 to 80 percent of his time
offshore working on special purpose drilling rigs belonging
to 23 different companies, and ate and slept aboard drilling
rigs, was not Jones Act seaman where he did not possess
seaman's paper or Coast Guard license, his employer did not
own or lease any offshore rigs or vessels, but was
independent contractor who sent workers to any concern
requesting its services, 23 drilling rigs he worked aboard
were not under common ownership or control of his employer
nor did they share nexus which would support finding that
they were fleet, and worker did not fall within exception to
common ownership or control requirement because he did not
perform traditional duties of blue water seaman. Lirette v
N.L. Sperry Sun, Inc. (1987, CA5 La) 831 F2d
554.
Oil-field worker
engaged in drilling of submerged lands or tidelands of Gulf
of Mexico on outer continental shelf was not seaman within
contemplation of 46 USCS Appx section 688. Ross v Delta Drilling
Co. (1962, Ed La) 213 F Supp 270, 1964 AMC 209, cert den 382
US 966, 15 L Ed 2d 369, 86 S Ct 456.
Floorhand in drilling crew more or less
permanently assigned as regular employee on rig was seaman
within protective provisions of 46 USCS Appx section 688. Guilbeau
v Falcon Seaboard Drilling Co. (1963, ED La) 215 F Supp 909,
1965 AMC 346.
Since
plaintiff, as derrick hand and member of drilling crew, was
obviously contributing to oil exploration function of
submersible drilling barge, which is vessel within meaning
of 46 USCS Appx section 688, he is, under such circumstances,
entitled to be included within traditional classification of
"blue water" seamen, albeit vicariously. McCarty v Service
Contracting, Inc. (1970, ED La) 317 F Supp
629.
Assistant driller was
"seaman" under the Jones Act (46 Appx. USCS section 688) at time
of his injury because (1) movable oil rig where he worked is
vessel in navigation, (2) driller was assigned to rig for up
to 30-day shifts, giving permanent connection between seaman
and ship, and (3) driller participated in significant
navigational functions, since rig was moved 3 times while he
was there. Davis v Forex (1986, ED Pa) 655 F Supp
605.
Drilling service ] employee is denied remand to state court, where he asserts
Jones Act (46 USCS Appx section 688) claim for loss of leg during
testing of offshore oil well while assigned to
semisubmersible drill ship, because employee cannot possibly
meet seaman status criteria since he did not have connection
to vessel in navigation, or identifiable group of vessels,
that was substantial in duration and nature. Cunningham v
Schlumberger Well Servs. (1996, WD La) 937 F Supp
570.
170. --Stationary drilling platformMember of oil drilling crew on sunken drilling
barge may be seaman under 46 USCS Appx section 688. Gianfala v
Texas Co. (1955) 350 US 879, 100 L Ed 775, 76 S Ct 141, reh
den 350 US 960, 100 L Ed 834, 76 S Ct 346 and (not followed
Johnson v John F. Beasley Constr. Co. (CA7 Ill) 742 F2d
1054, cert den (US) 84 L Ed 2d 328, 105 S Ct 1180 and
(disagreed with Barrett v Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. (CA5 La) 781
F2d 1067)); Ledet v U. S. Oil of Louisiana, Inc. (1964, ED
La) 237 F Supp 183.
Derrick
man employed to perform work in connection with drilling of
oil well from fixed stationary platform located some 10
miles from coast, injured while working on this structure,
was not seaman or member of crew of vessel who could bring
action for personal injuries under 46 USCS Appx section 688;
platform could not be considered "vessel" within meaning of
section 688. Freeman v Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. (1968, CA5
La) 398 F2d 808.
Workman
injured on fixed drilling platforms should have his status
as seaman protected by 46 USCS Appx section 688 determined by
trier of facts when two conditions are met: (1) when injured
workman is assigned permanently to vessel or performs
substantial part of his work thereon, and (2) when his
duties contribute to function of vessel or to accomplishment
of its mission. Nolan v Coating Specialists, Inc. (1970, CA5
La) 422 F2d 377.
Employee
who worked on fixed stationary drilling platform was not
seaman and could not recover for injuries sustained while
working on platform, despite fact that he ate, slept, and
spent off-duty time on tender which serviced platform.
Keener v Transworld Drilling Co. (1972, CA5 La) 468 F2d
729.
Welder, assigned,
berthed, and fed on stationary production platform off coast
of Louisiana who was injured by some falling equipment while
cutting header supports to allow equipment to be loaded from
platform onto nearby barge failed to establish his status as
"seaman" for purposes of 46 USCS Appx section 688. Ross v Mobil
Oil Corp. (1973, CA5 La) 474 F2d 989, cert den 414 US 1012,
38 L Ed 2d 250, 94 S Ct 378.
Painter's helper injured while being lifted in
crane's cargo basket from crew boat to drilling platform was
not seaman entitled to sue under 46 USCS Appx section 688 where
painter's helper was not permanently assigned to vessel, did
not perform substantial part of his work on such vessel, his
employment as painter's helper on platform did not
contribute either to function of vessel or to welfare of
vessel during its movement, and he was only passenger on
crew boat twice daily. Callahan v Fluor Ocean Services, Inc.
(1973, CA5 La) 482 F2d 1350.
One employed as member of drilling crew on
employer's drilling rig located on stationary drilling
platform in Gulf of Mexico was not member of crew of vessel
entitled to sue under 46 USCS Appx section 688. Owens v Diamond M
Drilling Co. (1973, CA5 La) 487 F2d 74, reh den (CA5 La) 487
F2d 1401.
Personal
representatives of drilling platform worker who was killed
in crash of helicopter crew boat were entitled to maintain
46 USCS Appx section 688 action for his death notwithstanding that
he was employed on fixed platform at time of his death,
where (1) during two years prior to his death worker had
spent all but small fraction of his working time on
submersible drilling barges and (2) worker was assigned to
fixed platform where he had worked during week preceding his
death as presumably temporary replacement for vacationing
foreman. Higginbotham v Mobil Oil Corp. (1977, CA5 La) 545
F2d 422 (disagreed with Smith v M/V Captain Fred (CA5 La)
546 F2d 119) as stated in Longmire v Sea Drilling Corp. (CA5
La) 610 F2d 1342, reh den (CA5 La) 615 F2d 919 and
(disagreed with Steckler v United States (CA10 Colo) 549 F2d
1372, 38 ALR Fed 188 (disagreed with Smith v United States
(CA3 Pa) 587 F2d 1013)) and revd on other grounds and reh
den 439 US 884, 58 L Ed 2d 200, 99 S Ct 232 and (ovrld on
other grounds Culver v Slater Boat Co. (CA5 La) 688 F2d 280,
op withdrawn, in part (CA5 La) 722 F2d 114, cert den 467 US
1252, 82 L Ed 2d 842, 104 S Ct 3537 and cert den 469 US 819,
83 L Ed 2d 37, 105 S Ct 90) and (disapproved on other
grounds Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v Pfeifer, 462 US
523, 76 L Ed 2d 768, 103 S Ct 2541, on remand (CA3) 711 F2d
570).
Fishing tool
supervisor whose job was to retrieve drilling tools and
broken pipe from well hole, most of whose work was on fixed
offshore platform, with only some paperwork and tool
preparation on tender vessel, although he ate and slept on
tender vessel, did not perform substantial portion of his
work upon vessel and was not a seaman. Miller v Rowan Cos.
(1987, CA5 La) 815 F2d 1021.
Barge on which libelant was injured was used in
exploration and development of Gulf offshore oil fields, and
at time of accident was actively engaged in drilling
operations; although barge was submerged and resting on
water bottom at time of accident, it was nevertheless
vessel, and 46 USCS Appx section 688 and general maritime law
pertaining to rights of seamen were therefore applicable in
action for damages, maintenance, and cure. Ledet v U. S. Oil
of Louisiana, Inc. (1964, ED La) 237 F Supp 183, 1966 AMC
818.
Derrickman employed on
oil drilling rig resting on fixed platform installed on
piles driven into floor of Gulf of Mexico was not seaman for
purposes of 46 USCS Appx section 688. Sirmons v Baxter Drilling,
Inc. (1965, WD La) 239 F Supp 348.
Worker on stationary drilling platform which
was serviced by tender on which worker slept and ate was not
seaman entitled to 46 USCS Appx section 688 provisions. Johnson v
Noble Drilling Co. (1966, WD La) 264 F Supp
104.
Mud man on
oil-well-drilling crew working aboard platform permanently
affixed to ocean floor was not crewman entitled to bring
action under 46 USCS Appx section 688. Johnson v Noble Drilling
Co. (1966, WD La) 264 F Supp 104.
One who is employed and assigned on fixed
immobile artificial island situated on Outer Continental
Shelf (rig and artificial island being serviced by tender)
and who allegedly sustained injuries aboard artificial
island while working as "motorman" when length of board
allegedly fell from above and struck him on his safety
helmet was not seaman within meaning of 46 USCS Appx section 688.
Owens v Diamond M Drilling Co. (1973, WD La) 370 F Supp 76,
affd (CA5 La) 487 F2d 74, reh den (CA5 La) 487 F2d
1401.
Injured offshore
drilling platform worker was not seaman under Jones Act as
matter of law where worker was working at time when drilling
operations had ceased and rig was being dismantled for
transport to another platform, where worker was assisting in
dismantling rig and loading equipment on vessel, was not
assigned to perform any tasks aboard vessel and was injured
while dismantling drilling equipment on platform, and where
drilling crew slept and ate aboard vessel only for week or
so that it took to move their normal living quarters to
another rig. Poole v Marlin Drilling Co. (1984, WD La) 592 F
Supp 60.
Injured worker
fails to state claim under 46 USCS Appx section 688, where
assignment which resulted in injuries was centered on repair
of fixed drilling platform rather than on vessel which
transported him, because permanent assignment prong is not
met and thus worker is not "seaman." Gates v Delta Corrosion
Offshore, Inc. (1989, WD La) 715 F Supp
160.
Plaintiff was not
"seaman" for purpose of Jones Act where he worked as "plug
and abandon" helper to insert cement plugs and remove
casings of abandoned oil wells under offshore platforms and
where he worked from fixed platforms and lift boats. St.
Romain v Industrial Fabrication & Repair Serv. (2000,
CA5 La) 203 F3d 376, 2000 AMC 860.
171. --Roustabouts and roughnecksRoughneck on oilwell-drilling crew assigned to
offshore fixed platform was not member of crew of drilling
barge which tended rig, and so could not recover against his
employer under Jones Act (46 USCS Appx section 688). Texas Co. v
Savoie (1957, CA5 La) 240 F2d 674, reh den (CA5 La) 242 F2d
667, cert den 355 US 840, 2 L Ed 2d 51, 78 S Ct 49, reh den
355 US 885, 2 L Ed 2d 115, 78 S Ct 146, Tipton v Socony
Mobil Oil Co. (1963, CA5 Tex) 315 F2d 660, vacated on other
grounds 375 US 34, 11 L Ed 2d 4, 84 S Ct 1, reh den 375 US
936, 11 L Ed 2d 268, 84 S Ct 328.
Evidence was sufficient to go to and sustain
determination of jury that "roughneck" injured while working
as member of oil drilling crew on mobile drilling platform
towed to well located in Gulf of Mexico waters and with its
retractable legs resting on ocean floor, was seaman for
purposes of 46 USCS Appx section 688. Offshore Co. v Robison
(1959, CA5 La) 266 F2d 769, 75 ALR2d 1296, 1959 AMC 2049
(disagreed with Johnson v John F. Beasley Constr. Co. (CA7
Ill) 742 F2d 1054, cert den (US) 84 L Ed 2d 328, 105 S Ct
1180 and (disagreed with Barrett v Chevron, U.S.A., Inc.
(CA5 La) 781 F2d 1067)).
In
personal injury action, roustabout employed on defendant's
fixed drilling rig, is not "seaman" under Jones Act since
all of plaintiff's duties in relation to vessel are classic
longshoreman duties, are not sufficient to make him a member
of crew of vessel, and have nothing to do with regular
operations of vessel; such incidental and temporary duty
aboard tender is insufficient to make plaintiff Jones Act
seaman. Billings v Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. (1980, CA5 La) 618
F2d 1108.
Roustabout
employed by oil company to work in water-surrounded oil
field is seaman where oil company had specifically designed
vessels to transport roustabouts to work site, these vessels
also were constructed to store and carry tools, pipes, or
other equipment necessary to roustabouts' work and work
could be and often was performed on deck of these vessels.
Coulter v Texaco, Inc. (1983, CA5 La) 714 F2d
467.
Roustabout employed by
drilling mud and chemical company could not maintain action
under Jones Act for injuries sustained from slips and falls
on numerous occasions on decks of vessels littered with
debris and slippery substances, in that he was not seaman
where he had performed only sporadic work upon docked
vessels while loading and unloading, he had never gone out
on any vessel, had never eaten or slept on any vessel, and
had nothing to do with any vessel's navigation. Balfer v
Mayronne Mud & Chemical Co. (1985, CA5 La) 762 F2d
432.
Oil field roustabout,
who worked on offshore platforms and used various small
vessels chosen at random from larger number available to
travel to and from platforms and to carry his tools and
equipment, was not seamen within meaning of Jones Act, where
roustabout was not assigned more or less permanently to any
particular vessel or fleet of vessels (various vessels
instead being assigned to him), and where roustabout did not
perform substantial part of his work on vessels, but rather,
vessels were simply means by which roustabout was enabled to
perform his own platform-related missions. Munguia v Chevron
Co., U.S.A. (1985, CA5 La) 768 F2d 649, reh den, en banc
(CA5 La) 775 F2d 301 and cert den (US) 89 L Ed 2d 580, 106 S
Ct 1272.
Roustabout who
performed pumping, gauging, and other work on oil drilling
platforms to which he was transported by boat was not member
of crew and was thus not seaman under Jones Act
notwithstanding that he did some incidental work that
contributed to maintenance and operation of vessels used for
transporting workers and equipment, where (1) vessels were
randomly assigned to him as means of getting to and from
platforms and other structures, and (2) he did not perform
substantial part of his work on vessels. Munguia v Chevron
Co., U.S.A. (1985, CA5 La) 768 F2d 649, reh den, en banc
(CA5 La) 775 F2d 301 and cert den (US) 89 L Ed 2d 580, 106 S
Ct 1272.
Worker employed as
roughneck or roustabout on drilling rig temporarily attached
to pontoon barge and operated in navigable lake was entitled
to seaman status for purposes of Jones Act. McFarland v
Justiss Oil Co. (1988, La App 3d Cir) 526 So 2d
1206.
Under rule that
injured worker seeking to qualify as Jones Act seaman must
show that he was permanently assigned to or performed
substantial part of his work on vessel and that capacity of
his employment contributed to function, mission, operation,
or welfare of vessel, plaintiff working as roustabout
assigned to fixed oil drilling platform, who suffered
personal injuries when crane he was operating (which was
mounted on pedestal attached to frame of platform) broke
loose and plunged into Gulf of Mexico, is not Jones Act
seaman notwithstanding allegation that he was borrowed
servant and employee of barge being unloaded at time of
accident and was assertedly performing traditional seaman
duties of unloading vessel; although question of whether
injured employee is Jones Act seaman normally is question to
be decided by trier of fact, trial court would decide
question in light of clear factual stipulations and
plaintiff's own allegations of fact. Pool v Kemper Ins.
Group (1980, La App 3rd Cir) 386 So 2d 1006, cert den (La)
391 So 2d 456.
In action
brought under Jones Act (46 USCS Appx section 688) and general
maritime law by roustabout for injuries sustained while
working on semi submersible drilling rig, roustabout's
status as seaman within meaning of Act is not disputed and
employer therefore has duty to provide employee with
reasonably safe place to work. Rains v Diamond M. Co. (1981,
La App 3rd Cir) 396 So 2d 306, cert den (La) 399 So 2d 623
and cert den 455 US 938, 71 L Ed 2d 648, 102 S Ct
1427.
172. --Platform tender crewsA
mud pumper who spent most of his working time aboard tender
which serviced and was affixed to offshore drilling platform
was seaman within meaning of 46 USCS Appx section 688 and was
entitled to maintenance and cure, and it was immaterial that
he did not have seaman's papers and that he was injured
while performing duties on platform. Noble Drilling Corp. v
Smith (1969, CA5 La) 412 F2d 952, cert den 396 US 906, 24 L
Ed 2d 182, 90 S Ct 221.
Evidence that plaintiff, while employed as
"driller" on offshore oil drilling platform, but having
substantial duties in connection with tender which traveled
from one platform to another in that he was charged with
maintenance of part of tender, slept and ate aboard it, was
subject to discipline of master of ship, and underwent same
hazards of sea as rest of crew, was sufficient to sustain
jury finding that he was a "seaman" within coverage of 46
USCS Appx section 688. Kimble v Noble Drilling Corp. (1969, CA5
La) 416 F2d 847, cert den 397 US 918, 25 L Ed 2d 99, 90 S Ct
924.
Worker employed as
roughneck on offshore drilling crew who was injured while
stowing anchor chain aboard tender was not Jones Act
"seaman" where work on board tender was only incidental to
worker's primary responsibilities on drilling rig and
platform and was irregular and fortuitous, entirely
dependent upon and subsidiary to progress of drilling
operation. Longmire v Sea Drilling Corp. (1980, CA5 La) 610
F2d 1342, reh den (CA5 La) 615 F2d 919.
Roustabout employed by drilling mud and
chemical company could not maintain action under Jones Act
for injuries sustained from slips and falls on numerous
occasions on decks of vessels littered with debris and
slippery substances, in that he was not seaman where he had
performed only sporadic work upon docked vessels while
loading and unloading, he had never gone out on any vessel,
had never eaten or slept on any vessel, and had nothing to
do with any vessel's navigation. Balfer v Mayronne Mud &
Chemical Co. (1985, CA5 La) 762 F2d 432.
All persons employed aboard drill tender which
serviced stationary drilling platform affixed to ocean floor
were seamen or members of crew of tender to whom 46 USCS
Appx section 688 remedy applied. Creel v Drill Tender Jack
Cleverly (1966, WD La) 264 F Supp 98.
173. Drydock workers and shipbuildersThird officer of ship employed on vessel while
it was in drydock undergoing repairs preparatory to voyage
was seaman for purposes of 46 USCS Appx section 688 though vessel
was not then in commission. Lindgren v United States (1930)
281 US 38, 74 L Ed 686, 50 S Ct 207, 1930 AMC
399.
Employee of defendant
company, which operated boats on river during summer season,
was not seaman for purposes of 46 USCS Appx section 688 while
engaged in repairing boats hoisted on blocks prior to
beginning of summer season. Desper v Starved Rock Ferry Co.
(1952) 342 US 187, 96 L Ed 205, 72 S Ct 216, 1952 AMC 12,
reh den 342 US 934, 96 L Ed 695, 72 S Ct
374.
One engaged in
repairing a scow on dry dock upon navigable waters is seaman
for purposes of 46 USCS Appx section 688. Rogosich v Union Dry
Dock & Repair Co. (1933, CA3 NJ) 67 F2d 377, 1934 AMC
219.
Where shipbuilder's
employee at time of his injuries was assisting in installing
dynamos in engine room of vessel lying in navigable waters
which had been launched but not fully completed or
commissioned, he was not seaman within meaning of 46 USCS
Appx section 688. Frankel v Bethlehem-Fairfield Shipyard, Inc.
(1942, CA4 Md) 132 F2d 634, cert den 319 US 746, 87 L Ed
1702, 63 S Ct 1030.
Employee of shipbuilding corporation working as
handyman on ship which, although launched and in navigable
waters, had not been completed, was not seaman for purposes
of 46 USCS Appx section 688. Frankel v Bethlehem-Fairfield
Shipyard, Inc. (1942, CA4 Md) 132 F2d 634, cert den 319 US
746, 87 L Ed 1702, 63 S Ct 1030.
Plaintiff, a paint sprayer in the dock repair
yards, does not qualify as "seaman" under 46 USCS Appx section
688. Rao v Hillman Barge & Constr. Co. (1972, CA3 Pa)
467 F2d 1276.
Member of
crew hired as seaman, who when vessel arrived in port was
paid off and rehired for time ship went to dry dock for
repairs, remained seaman for purposes of 46 USCS Appx section 688.
Hunt v United States (1936, DC NY) 17 F Supp 578, affd (CA2
NY) 91 F2d 1014, cert den 302 US 752, 82 L Ed 581, 58 S Ct
271.
Rigger employed by
shipyard corporation was not seaman under 46 USCS Appx section
688. Fine v United States (1946, DC NY) 66 F Supp
768.
174. EngineersFor purposes of 46
USCS Appx section 688, assistant engineer was seaman, not
longshoreman, though he spent large part of time ashore. The
New Berne (1935, CA4 Va) 80 F2d 244, 1935 AMC
1445.
Engineer engaged in
laying up ship for winter after discharge of remainder of
crew is not seaman within 46 USCS Appx section 688. Antus v
Interocean S. S. Co. (1939, CA6 Ohio) 108 F2d 185, 1940 AMC
459.
In Jones Act action
against wireline services employer by employee wireline
engineer injured while traveling to drilling platform,
dismissal of claim was proper where drilling vessels were
not considered "fleet of vessels" in that oil company
vessels did not act together or under one control, despite
presence of winch and computer device installed on deck and
owned by employer, and where injured employee was not
considered seaman, in that itinerant wireline workers
usually have no permanent relationship with particular
vessels and are not subject to Jones Act. Ardleigh v
Schlumberger, Ltd. (1987, CA5 La) 832 F2d 933, 9 FR Serv 3d
742.
Seaman employed as
engineer is covered by 46 USCS Appx section 688 whether his
injuries were sustained on navigable waters or while he was
on land. Brown v L. A. Wells Const. Co. (1943, App, Cuyahoga
Co) 45 Ohio L Abs 300, 67 NE2d 110, affd 143 Ohio St 580, 28
Ohio Ops 486, 56 NE2d 451.
175. Ferryboat crewsEmployee of
ferry more or less permanently assigned to ferry and
performing substantially all of his work aboard ferry which
contributes to function of ferry and to accomplishment of
its mission is seaman within purview of Jones Act, 46 USCS
Appx section 688, even though he did not have seaman's papers and
he was paid by hourly rate. Dardar v Louisiana (1971, ED La)
322 F Supp 1115, affd (CA5 La) 447 F2d 952, cert den 405 US
918, 30 L Ed 2d 788, 92 S Ct 943, reh den 405 US 1048, 31 L
Ed 2d 591, 92 S Ct 1308.
Plaintiff, employed by city in civil service
title of deckhand and assigned to ferry terminal, was not
"seaman" under Jones Act where his work was land based and
consisted of lowering pedestrian walkway to ferry and
raising terminal doors. Sologub v City of New York (2000,
CA2 NY) 202 F3d 175, 2000 AMC 742.
176. FishermenFishermen are
seamen for purposes of 46 USCS Appx section 688. Osland v Star
Fish & Oyster Co. (1941, CA5 Ala) 118 F2d 772, 1941 AMC
792; cert den 314 US 615, 86 L Ed 495, 62 S Ct 86, reh den
314 US 716, 86 L Ed 570, 62 S Ct 477; Roberts v United
Fisheries Vessels Co. (1944, CA1 Mass) 141 F2d 288, cert den
323 US 753, 89 L Ed 603, 65 S Ct 81; Ursich v Da Rosa (1964,
CA9 Cal) 328 F2d 794, cert den 379 US 920, 13 L Ed 2d 334,
85 S Ct 273.
Question
whether one participating in shark-fishing contest injured
aboard pleasure vessel while assisting in attempting to
start motor was seaman under 46 USCS Appx section 688 should be
presented to jury. Bedia v Ford Motor Co. (1973, DC NY) 58
FRD 423.
177. --Effect of sharing catch for wagesThat fisherman was paid no daily wages but
percentage of proceeds from sale of fish caught was not
inconsistent with his being seaman at time he was injured
aboard vessel. Osland v Star Fish & Oyster Co. (1939,
CA5 Ala) 107 F2d 113, later app (CA5 Ala) 118 F2d 772, cert
den 314 US 615, 86 L Ed 495, 62 S Ct 86, reh den 314 US 716,
86 L Ed 570, 62 S Ct 477.
On fishing voyage, shares of profits awarded
captain and crew are merely method of payment for their
services, and fishermen are employees and seamen for
purposes of 46 USCS Appx section 688. Southern Shell Fish Co. v
Plaisance (1952, CA5 La) 196 F2d 312.
Member of crew on fishing vessel, entitled to
share of earnings of boat, was seaman entitled to recover
for injuries under 46 USCS Appx section 688. Domandich v Doratich
(1932, Wash) 1932 AMC 835.
178. Independent contractors and employees46 USCS Appx section 688 does not apply to case in
which maintenance employee of cargo consignee's independent
contractor slipped on deck of vessel on oil spilled by
contractor's defective pump and died. The Tungus v Skovgaard
(1959) 358 US 588, 3 L Ed 2d 524, 79 S Ct 503, 71 ALR2d
1280, 1959 AMC 130.
Seaman
employed by contractor and assigned by his employer to more
or less permanent relationship with vessel could bring
action against employer under 46 USCS Appx section 688 where
seaman's supervisor was also employed by contractor, and
where contractor had immediate control over operations which
resulted in injury. Barrios v Louisiana Constr. Materials
Co. (1972, CA5 La) 465 F2d 1157.
Seamen engaged by pilots' association to row
yawl from pilot tender to steamship are not employees of
steamship for purposes of 46 USCS Appx section 688. Peterson v
United New York Sandy Hook Pilots' Asso. (1934, DC NY) 6 F
Supp 649, 1934 AMC 685.
Where plaintiff is injured on board ship in
course of employment, as painter employed by subcontractor,
he cannot recover damages under 46 USCS Appx section 688 from
corporation operating ship as owner's agent or general
contractor because he is not seaman or employee of either
defendant. Lugo v Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc. (1949, DC NY)
86 F Supp 541.
Employee of
caterer contracted to provide supplies for submersible
drilling barge, injured by slipping on barge while storing
supplies under direction of barge foreman was member of crew
for purposes of 46 USCS Appx section 688. Hebert v California Oil
Co. (1967, WD La) 280 F Supp 754.
Service representative for company that sold
solids control equipment for use in oil industry was not
seaman within meaning of Jones Act where, though his work
required him to go out on calls to inland and offshore rigs
to either install equipment or trouble-shoot problems with
previously-rented equipment, and he worked indiscriminately
on land-based rigs, fixed offshore platforms, special
purpose drilling vessels, depending upon the needs of the
company's various customers, and he would stay at job site
only long enough to complete particular job in question,
subject to usual delays occasioned by whether,
transportation, and other operations on the rig in question.
Moser v Aminoil, U.S.A., Inc. (1985, WD La) 618 F Supp
774.
Employee of
independent contractor supplying catering and housekeeping
services for drilling company cannot assert claim under
Jones Act for injuries sustained when employee fell from
makeshift platform while making top bunk beds in crew
quarters aboard drilling company's fixed platform, since
drilling company owed no warranty of seaworthiness where
accident occurred on fixed platform and since drilling
company was not employer. Moore v Noble Drilling Co. (1986,
ED Tex) 637 F Supp 97.
179. --Barbers and hairdressersPlaintiff, barber and store salesman on
defendant's ship, who was employed by concessionaire under
written contract, which concessionaire also had written
contract with defendant to operate barber shop and ship's
store, paying defendant percentage of gross receipts, could
not maintain action under 46 USCS Appx section 688 for personal
injuries. Schiemann v Grace Line, Inc. (1959, CA2 NY) 269
F2d 596, 1960 AMC 572.
Professional hairdresser injured aboard ship
while in employ of independent contractor which operated
beauty and barber shop on shipowner's vessel, although not
performing historic function of ship's crew, was seaman at
time of her alleged injury and was proper party plaintiff
under 46 USCS Appx section 688. Mahramas v American Export
Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc. (1973, CA2 NY) 475 F2d
165.
180. Longshoremen and stevedoresAmerican citizen working as stevedore or
longshoreman on foreign vessel in American port may recover
under 46 USCS Appx section 688 for injuries caused by negligence
of fellow servant. Uravic v F. Jarka Co. (1931) 282 US 234,
75 L Ed 312, 51 S Ct 111.
Longshoreman who while in employ of stevedoring
company and while on pier and engaged in loading cargo on
vessel lying alongside in harbor was struck by life raft
which fell from vessel and injured him, could not maintain
suit under 46 USCS Appx section 688 against his employer. Swanson
v Marra Bros., Inc. (1946) 328 US 1, 90 L Ed 1045, 66 S Ct
869.
Directed verdict that
decedent was not Jones Act seaman was correct where evidence
was uncontroverted that decedent was not more or less
permanently attached to vessel or specific fleet of vessels
but only assisted in loading and unloading of whatever
barges were at dock. Burns v Anchor-Wate Co. (1972, CA5 La)
469 F2d 730.
Steel company
laborer injured while loading cargo, who worked on barges 3
3/4 days during 74 day employment, was not seaman within 46
USCS Appx section 688. Griffith v Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel Corp.
(1975, CA3 Pa) 521 F2d 31, cert den 423 US 1054, 46 L Ed 2d
643, 96 S Ct 785.
Roustabout whose duties included loading heavy
sacks of chemicals and other items on to navigable vessels
docked on navigable waterways was longshoreman and not
seaman, since it was conceded that he never went out on any
vessel, never ate or slept on vessel, and had nothing to do
with any vessel's navigation. Balfer v Mayronne Mud &
Chemical Co. (1985, CA5 La) 762 F2d 432.
One who was regularly employed as longshoreman
but who met his death while temporarily performing work of
shipping lighters, was not "seaman," and compensation for
his death must be sought under Longshore and Harbor Workers'
Compensation Act (33 USCS section 901 et seq.). Southern Pacific
Co. v Locke (1932, DC NY) 1 F Supp 992, 1932 AMC
1444.
Workman employed for
specific purpose of aiding in discharge of cargo does not
come under terms of 46 USCS Appx section 688 but must proceed
under Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33
USCS section 901 et seq.) for injuries. Rackus v Moore-McCormack
Lines, Inc. (1949, DC Pa) 85 F Supp 185.
Individual who received longshoreman's
employment through union hall on day to day basis and who on
any given day might work for defendant employer or for some
other stevedoring company does not have such substantial
vessel relationship so as to have seaman status with respect
to injury suffered while moving barge covers on grain barge
during unloading operations; individual's relationship to
employer's crane barge, whose operator allegedly contributed
to injury by pulling barge covers on grain barge before he
was signaled to do so, was only incidental. Bogan v Barge
T-13315B (1985, ED La) 607 F Supp 85.
Insurer is denied summary dismissal of injured
worker's claims under 33 USCS section 905 and 46 USCS Appx section 688,
even though it asserts worker is not seaman and his claim is
precluded under section 905(b), because summary judgment record
suggests worker performed general maintenance aboard
operational vessel, and jury may determine he is
longshoreman and/or seaman capable of pursuing statutory
claims. Lee v Searex Mfg., L.L.C. (2001, ED La) 166 F Supp
2d 507.
Employee of
stevedore cannot maintain action against steamship company
under 46 USCS Appx section 688, but it is improper to dismiss
action since it may be continued as commonlaw action.
Pottage v Luckenbach S. S. Co., (1929) 206 Cal 622, 275 410,
1929 AMC 510.
181. --As independent contractors or employeesShore-based worker hired to work on vessel by
independent contractor is longshoreman and not seaman and
therefore not entitled to make claim under 46 USCS Appx section
688. Thomas v Peterson Marine Service (1969, CA5 La) 411 F2d
592, cert den 396 US 1006, 24 L Ed 2d 499, 90 S Ct
562.
Employee of stevedore
was not employee of vessel, and for injuries received could
not sue under 46 USCS Appx section 688. Petersen v Klitgaard
(1931) 212 Cal 516, 299 P 54, 1931 AMC 1027, cert den 284 US
672, 76 L Ed 569, 52 S Ct 128.
Longshoreman could not recover under 46 USCS
Appx section 688 since he was not serving as member of crew but
was performing for independent contractor. C. Flanagan &
Sons, Inc., v Carken (1928, Tex Civ App) 11 SW2d
392.
182. --Injured while on ship or bargeUnder 46 USCS Appx section 688 stevedores engaged in
maritime work of stowing cargo are seamen. Antus v
Interocean S. S. Co. (1939, CA6 Ohio) 108 F2d
185.
Longshoreman could not
maintain action against shipowner (not his employer) to
recover for personal injuries sustained while in hold of
ship in navigable waters. Kyles v James W. Elwell & Co.
(1961, CA7 Ill) 296 F2d 703, cert den 369 US 852, 8 L Ed 2d
10, 82 S Ct 936.
46 USCS
Appx section 688 does not say or mean that stevedores are to be
regarded as seamen on particular vessel upon which for
moment they happen to be at work. Kwasizur v Dawnic S. S.
Co. (1938, DC Pa) 25 F Supp 327, 1938 AMC
1231.
Longshoreman injured
while moving barge covers of crane barge during unloading
operations did not hold seaman status where he had no
substantial relationship to vessel, but received his
employment through union hall on day-to-day basis. Bogan v
Barge T-13315B (1985, ED La) 607 F Supp
85.
Longshoreman injured
while moving barge covers of crane barge during unloading
operations did not hold seaman status where he had no
substantial relationship to vessel, but received his
employment through union hall on day-to-day basis. Bogan v
Barge T-13315B (1985, ED La) 607 F Supp
85.
Longshoreman, who
primarily worked on board floating barge outfitted with deck
machinery used to unload cargo from river barges directly to
seagoing vessels and was injured on deck of just-unloaded
river barge could not sue river barge owner for breach of
warranty of seaworthiness under 46 USCS Appx section 688 since, as
non-Jones Act seaman, his exclusive remedy was under
Longshore and Harbor Workers' Act (33 USCS section 901 et seq.).
Burks v American River Transp. Co. (1980, MD La) 486 F Supp
603, affd (CA5 La) 679 F2d 69.
Employee whose sole function aboard a vessel is
to load or unload cargo from it is not member of crew as
matter of law; remedy of employee injured while supervising
loading or unloading of materials from barges was under
Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33 USCS section
901 et seq.), rather than under 46 USCS Appx section 688. Bowers v
Kaiser Steel Corp. (1967, Alaska) 422 P2d 848, cert den 388
US 910, 18 L Ed 2d 1348, 87 S Ct 2112.
Longshoreman injured while engaged in unloading
boxes of tin from covered barge into hold of vessel
alongside was performing maritime service and entitled to
recover under 46 USCS Appx section 688. Blosky v Overseas Shipping
Co. (1927) 219 App Div 438, 220 NYS 95.
46 USCS Appx section 688 applies to death of
longshoreman occurring on United States vessel at dock in
Canal Zone. Carrington v Panama Mail S. S. Co. (1929) 136
Misc 850, 241 NYS 347, 1930 AMC 289, revd on other grounds
232 App Div 695, 247 NYS 674, different results reached on
reh on other grounds 233 App Div 855, 251 NYS
803.
183. --Injured while doing work of seaman46 USCS Appx section 688 was applicable to stevedore
injured while doing work of seaman. Daniels v States Marine
Corp. (1960, ED La) 184 F Supp 815, 1961 AMC
1203.
Where longshoreman
was not member of crew of vessel, question of whether or not
he was at time of injury doing seaman's work was immaterial,
since his exclusive remedy against his employer was under
Longshore and Harbor Workers' Act (33 USCS section 901 et seq.),
and he had no rights of action under 46 USCS Appx section 688.
Garland v Alaska S. S. Co. (1963, DC Alaska) 217 F Supp 757,
1963 AMC 2605.
184. Master of vesselMaster of
tugboat upon inland river is seaman within meaning of 46
USCS Appx section 688. Warner v Goltra (1934) 293 US 155, 79 L Ed
254, 55 S Ct 46, 1934 AMC 1436.
Inquiry into seaman status for Jones Act
purposes requires determination of whether injured plaintiff
is master or member of crew of any vessel. Roberts v
Cardinal Servs. (2001, CA5 La) 266 F3d
368.
Master of vessel is
within protection of 46 USCS Appx section 688. George Poppe v
Beadle S. S. Co. (1934, DC Cal) 1934 AMC
1267.
That merchant seaman
was in charge of vessel at time of accident does not destroy
his status as seaman within meaning of 46 USCS Appx section 688.
Yates v Dann (1951, DC Del) 11 FRD 386.
Master of ship, who was instructed to supervise
crew during vacation due to absence of ship doctor, was
seaman on ship engaged in navigation where ship was moored
to float in navigable waters, hence death of master from
drowning as result of returning late at night to ship was
covered by 46 USCS Appx section 688 rather than by compensation
under local workmen's compensation act. Alaska Dept. of
Health v Alaska Industrial Board (1951, DC Alaska) 101 F
Supp 171.
Decedent was in
shipowner's employ as member of crew and under facts was
entitled to benefits of 46 USCS Appx section 688 whether acting as
seaman or master. Rouchleau v Silva (1950) 35 Cal 2d 355,
217 P2d 929.
Employee who
was in charge of tug and who was actively engaged at time of
injury in navigating tug, was classed as master and thus was
to recover under 46 USCS Appx section 688 for injuries rather than
Workmen's Compensation Act. Sanguinetti v Moore Dry Dock Co.
(1951) 36 Cal 2d 812, 228 P2d 557.
185. PilotsEmployee was "seaman"
at time of injury, suffered in automobile accident on voyage
from home to port where he was to board tugboat, where he
was permanently assigned as pilot to one or another of
defendant's tugboats; and any uncertainty as to which
tugboat was not material. Magnolia Towing Co. v Pace (1967,
CA5 Miss) 378 F2d 12.
Compulsory river pilot who died of heart attack
after climbing aboard vessel was not "seaman" for purpose of
Jones Act; court will not extend coverage of Act to workers
exposed to seaman's perils but who lack requisite connection
to vessel or fleet. Bach v Trident S.S. Co. (1991, CA5 La)
920 F2d 322.
Compulsory
river pilot lacks employment relationship with shipowner and
is not entitled to maintain Jones Act action against it;
pilot is in supreme command of vessel while he is navigating
it, shipowner has no choice in selecting pilot, and master
of vessel lacks ability to control pilot in degree necessary
to create master-servant relationship. Evans v United Arab
Shipping Co. S.A.G. (1993, CA3 NJ) 4 F3d 207, 1993 AMC
2705.
Since, under state
statute, ship's master could elect to engage pilot or pilot
his own ship and pay pilotage, pilot engaged is employee
within meaning of 46 USCS Appx section 688. Peterson v United New
York Sandy Hook Pilots' Asso. (1934, DC NY) 6 F Supp 649,
1934 AMC 685.
Independent
river pilot who concededly had no sort of permanent
attachment to ship on which accident occurred was not
covered by 46 USCS Appx section 688. Clark v Solomon Navigation,
Ltd. (1986, SD NY) 631 F Supp 1275.
Claim by estate of deceased river pilot fails
under 46 USCS Appx section 688, where pilot, who died on vessel,
was compulsory pilot assigned by pilots' association to
navigate vessel, because statute does not apply to
compulsory pilots; employer/employee relationship required
for applicability did not exist. Bach v Trident Shippping
Co. (1988, ED La) 708 F Supp 772, 1989 AMC 460, summary
judgment gr (ED La) 708 F Supp 776.
Licensed pilot hired to steer ships through
Delaware River and Bay and Chesapeake and Delaware Canal is
"seaman" entitled to protection afforded by 46 USCS Appx section
688, even though on-call river pilot cannot meet traditional
requirement that he be permanently assigned to defendant's
vessel or perform substantial amount of his work aboard it,
because river pilot--who has no permanent connection to any
one ship yet is placed at most important post at helm of
ship when needed--was seaman under general maritime law at
time Congress passed section 688. Evans v United Arab Shipping Co.
(1991, DC NJ) 767 F Supp 1284, 1991 AMC
2409.
Captain is not
entitled to legal benefits of Jones Act (46 USCS Appx section
688), where he is Louisiana river port pilot having
exclusive right to pilot vessels on Mississippi River
between New Orleans and Pilottown, is certified by port
commissioners, and is appointed by governor, because he is
not "seaman" since he lacks requisite connection to vessel
or identifiable fleet of vessels. Blancq v Hapag-Lloyd A.G.
(1997, ED La) 986 F Supp 376, 1998 AMC
1440.
186. Pleasure boat occupantsJoint adventurer acting as mechanic of
speedboat in race could not recover from other joint
adventurer and driver for injuries sustained from accident.
Eytinge v Berri (1936, DC NY) 1936 AMC 1699, affd (CA2 NY)
89 F2d 1006, 1937 AMC 974.
Husband and wife killed in explosion of
pleasure yacht allegedly owned by son's auto dealership
business and used to entertain customers were not "seamen"
under 46 USCS Appx section 688 or general maritime law at time of
accident, since they were not permanently assigned to yacht,
and evidence indicated that yacht was kept primarily for
their retirement use and enjoyment. Lee v Lee Motor Co.
(1974, SD Ala) 409 F Supp 552, affd without op (CA5 Ala) 529
F2d 1350.
Husband and wife
who were killed in explosion and fire aboard yacht were not
seamen under 46 USCS Appx section 688 at time of explosion where
yacht was owned by closely held corporation of which husband
was chairman of board and wife was secretary-treasurer, both
received salary but neither had specific duties with
company, yacht was kept primarily for use and enjoyment of
husband and wife in their retirement, and infrequent voyages
of vessel with customers of company did not constitute
substantial part of work of husband with company. Lee v Lee
Motor Co. (1974, SD Ala) 409 F Supp 552, affd without op
(CA5 Ala) 529 F2d 1350.
Plaintiff's decedent who agreed to accompany
owner of sailboat on trip to move boat to winter berth in
compliance with insurance policy provision was seaman,
notwithstanding inexperience and fact that he was not paid
for services, since he was on board primarily to aid in
navigation or to perform duties that contributed directly to
mission or purpose of vessel, was under direction and
control of master of vessel, and was performing seaman's
duties, rather than being merely guest-passenger. Gorgas v
Williams (1976, DC NJ) 1976 AMC 2387.
Marinas are not liable under Jones Act for
deaths of persons who drowned while transporting boat across
Lake Michigan where those persons were salesmen or other
employees of marinas who offered to take boat across lake
for purpose of sale as favor to owner, because decedents
were not seamen, in that (1) decedents had no permanent
connection with boat, which was not instrumentality of
private or public commerce, and (2) decedents were not
engaged in traditional work of sea but were engaged in what
amounted to pleasure cruise, incidentally related to
employment of one decedent, and other decedents were not in
scope of employment at all. Anderson v Whittaker Corp.
(1987, WD Mich) 692 F Supp 734, later proceeding (WD Mich)
692 F Supp 764.
Injured
cannoneers and companion state no valid claim for
unseaworthiness against vessel owner, where flash fire
caused injuries after cannon blast apparently ignited cannon
charges being stored in cardboard box during mock pirate
battle at harbor festival, because cannoneers were assigned
to vessel by festival committee, were voluntary participants
in battle for their own amusement, and were not employees or
members of crew and thus were not "seamen" within purview of
46 USCS Appx section 688. Re Complaint of Falkiner (1988, ED Va)
716 F Supp 895, 1989 AMC 810.
Tourist to Mexico cannot maintain Jones Act (46
USCS Appx section 688) claim against tour operator and others to
recover for injuries incurred in snorkeling accident, where
lure of tour was that she would be able to operate her own
speedboat en route to snorkeling location, because tourist
was neither "seaman" nor "employee" as required by Act.
Dunham v Hotelera Canco S.A. de C.V. (1996, ED Va) 933 F
Supp 543.
187. Radio and telephone operatorsRadio operator may be seaman. The Buena Ventura
(1916, DC NY) 243 F 797.
Telephone operator may be seaman. Keefe v
Matson Nav. Co. (1930, DC Wash) 46 F2d 123, 1931 AMC
426.
188. Railroad workersRailroad
employee loading goods into cars on carfloat was engaged in
maritime employment and must look to Longshore and Harbor
Workers' Compensation Act (33 USCS section 901 et seq.) alone
for relief. Nogueira v New York, N. H. & H. R. Co.
(1930) 281 US 128, 74 L Ed 754, 50 S Ct 303, 1930 AMC
763.
Railroad brakeman,
part of whose duties was to help move boxcars onto floats in
Delaware river, who was injured on carfloat while it was
being loaded at dock, was not master or member of crew of
any vessel for purposes of 46 USCS Appx section 688. Zientek v
Reading Co. (1955, CA3 Pa) 220 F2d 183, 1955 AMC 688, cert
den 350 US 846, 100 L Ed 754, 76 S Ct 55, reh den 350 US
960, 100 L Ed 834, 76 S Ct 345.
Employee of railroad was not seaman or borrowed
servant of shipowner under 46 USCS Appx section 688 where his only
involvement with ship was to cast off her lines and
communicate by gesture with her crew to extent necessary to
perform that function. Caldwell v Ogden Sea Transport, Inc.
(1980, CA4 Va) 618 F2d 1037 (disapproved on other grounds
Rodriguez v Compass Shipping Co., 451 US 596, 68 L Ed 2d
472, 101 S Ct 1945, reh den 453 US 923, 69 L Ed 2d 1005, 101
S Ct 3160) and on remand (ED Va) 518 F Supp
1229.
Pier laborer employed
by Railway Company, having no duties in connection with
navigation of vessel except incidental one of casting off
mooring lines, is not seaman within meaning of Jones Act (46
USCS Appx section 688). Sweeney v Gotaas-Larsen Argentina (1978,
DC Va) 1978 AMC 1757.
189. Repair and maintenance personnelRecord in suit by individual allegedly injured
while painting housing structure of tug at dockside does not
permit reasonable jury to conclude that individual is seaman
under 46 USCS Appx section 688(a), where, inter alia, (1) for
about two and one-half years, individual obtained short-term
job assignments from number of employers through union's
hiring hall; (2) most assignments were deckhand work; (3)
company which operated tug employed individual on 12
occasions in previous two and one-half months, and 3 or 4
occasions aboard tug involved only maintenance work while
tug was docked; and (4) individual was not going to sail
with tug after finishing painting assignment, which was
expected to last no more than 1 day. Harbor Tug & Barge
Co. v Papai (1997, US) 137 L Ed 2d 800, 117 S Ct 1535, 97
CDOS 3507, 97 Daily Journal DAR 6021, 1997 AMC 1817, 10 FLW
Fed S 433.
Employee was not
seaman covered by 46 USCS Appx section 688 at time of his drowning
where it appeared that he was employed as deckhand and
carpenter's helper on excursion steamer tied up for winter
at owner's wharf, employee was then employed under
classification of laborer for purpose of making necessary
repairs to steamer for following season, while doing this
work he was paid on hourly rate and not required, but could,
sleep on vessel, and that while chipping rust on steamer he
fell into river and was drowned. Nelson v Greene Line
Steamers, Inc. (1958, CA6 Ky) 255 F2d 31, 1959 AMC 1139,
cert den 358 US 867, 3 L Ed 2d 100, 79 S Ct
100.
Summary judgment on
basis that decedents were not seamen for purposes of 46 USCS
Appx section 688 was precluded in action brought for death of
superintendent in charge of all maintenance of his
employer's ferries, and his helper, who met their deaths
through alleged negligence of employees on board ferry while
decedents were making repairs to ferry machinery from work
boat fastened to side of ferry and while it was actually in
operation, drifting down river. Braniff v Jackson
Ave.-Gretna Ferry, Inc. (1960, CA5 La) 280 F2d 523, 1961 AMC
1728, reh den (CA5 La) 289 F2d 939.
Worker who was injured while employed as member
of drilling crew was not entitled to seaman status under
Jones Act, and thus district court properly granted
employer's motion for summary judgment, where drilling rig
had been loaded onto two barges, which were moored at
shipyard for six weeks awaiting completion of drilling
platform, and where worker was injured after he had been
performing maintenance and repair work on rig for
approximately three weeks; fact that drilling rig to which
worker was assigned happened to be resting on barges at time
of his injury was insufficient basis for finding of
permanent assignment to barges. Prinzi v Keydril Co. (1984,
CA5 La) 738 F2d 707.
Machinist who repaired equipment aboard car
ferries while sailing between ports and who performed almost
all duties aboard defendant's vessels satisfied requirement
for seaman status under Jones Act, 46 USCS Appx section 688.
Petersen v Chesapeake & O. R. Co. (1986, CA6 Mich) 784
F2d 732.
Employee who
performed dock work involving repair of tied-off barges and
salvage work was entitled to seaman status under 46 USCS
Appx section 688, despite fact that vessels on which employee
worked were engaged in 4 separate businesses, where District
Court found that employee's salvage work constituted at
least 51 percent of employee's hours and employee's duties
as salvor, log-loader, and ship-repairer contributed to
accomplishment of salvage and logging missions of employer's
vessels. Re Complaint of Patton-Tully Transp. Co. (1986, CA5
Miss) 797 F2d 206.
Employee
who performed dock work involving repair of tied-off barges
and salvage work was entitled to seaman status under 46 USCS
Appx section 688, despite fact that vessels on which employee
worked were engaged in 4 separate businesses, where District
Court found that employee's salvage work constituted at
least 51 percent of employee's hours and employee's duties
as salvor, log-loader, and ship-repairer contributed to
accomplishment of salvage and logging missions of employer's
vessels. Re Complaint of Patton-Tully Transp. Co. (1986, CA5
Miss) 797 F2d 206.
Worker
spending substantial portion of time aboard recognized fleet
of vessels performing electrical repairs is ineligible for
consideration as seaman or member of crew of vessel entitled
to claim benefits of Jones Act since longshoremen,
shipbuilders and ship repairers are engaged in occupations
enumerated in Longshore and Habor Workers' Compensation Act
and are unqualifiedly covered by such act. Pizzitolo v
Electro-Coal Transfer Corp. (1987, CA5 La) 812 F2d
977.
Individual hired to
perform painting and maintenance on vessels, who "owed his
allegiance" solely to land-based employer and not to any
particular vessel, who returned to land every evening, and
who had no expectation that he would ship out when vessels
eventually left dock, was not "seaman" within meaning of
Jones Act. Roth v U.S.S. Great Lakes Fleet (1994, CA8 Minn)
25 F3d 707.
Fact that
land-based maintenance worker spent much time eating,
sleeping and working from vessel moored to oil drilling
platform being repaired did not make plaintiff seaman for
purpose of Jones Act where his duties in no way contributed
to function of vessel. Hufnagel v Omega Serv. Indus. (1999,
CA5 La) 182 F3d 340.
Workman hired to steam out barge was seaman for
purposes of 46 USCS Appx section 688. The Harrisburg (1936, DC
Tex) 1936 AMC 311.
Marine
laborer, so-called, employed for general cleaning and
painting of defendant's ships, though some work on ships'
gear was done in shore workshops, was seaman and member of
crew aboard defendant's ship and entitled to maintain action
under 46 USCS Appx section 688. Lukos v Chesapeake & O. R. Co.
(1954, DC Mich) 120 F Supp 296.
Seaman employed to give ship's tanks cleaning
preparatory to ship being laid up was not employee protected
under 46 USCS Appx section 688. Perez v Marine Transport Lines,
Inc. (1958, DC La) 160 F Supp 853, 1958 AMC
1475.
Workers employed by
shipyard as sandblasters and who were injured while
performing repair tasks to vessel from tray suspended on
crane of barge-mounted derrick were not Jones Act "seamen"
where employees were shore-based workers having no more than
temporary relationship to derrick barge and were not aboard
barge to aid in its navigation. Richardson v Norfolk
Shipbuilding & Drydock Corp. (1979, ED Va) 479 F Supp
259, affd (CA4 Va) 621 F2d 633.
Worker hired not by vessel's owner but by firm
which contracted to provide maintenance and unloading of
vessel is not "seaman" under 46 Appx USCS section 688 where: (1)
worker was not permanently assigned to vessel, (2) worker's
travel with vessel ceased two months before injury and his
duties were limited to dispense tools necessary for
unloading, (3) when worker travelled on vessel, it was more
as working passenger because his duties did not involve
transit of vessel, (4) worker also worked aboard other
vessels, and (5) at all times, worker's assignment was to
maintain cargo equipment and expedite unloading. Russo v F
& T Services Corp. (1986, ED La) 636 F Supp
897.
Service technician who
checks and repairs navigational aids on offshore oil and gas
wells is not "seaman" under Jones Act (46 USCS section 688), where
technician was not permanently assigned to any vessel, spent
only about 25 percent of his time aboard vessels, and was
merely passenger when aboard vessels and did not contribute
to function of vessel, its operation, welfare, or
accomplishment of mission. Ketnor v Automatic Power, Inc.
(1987, ED La) 684 F Supp 907, 1988 AMC 802, affd (CA5 La)
850 F2d 236.
Workman
employed as repairer of U.S. Marine Corps equipment on
vessel who slipped and fell while leaving crew's mess area
on high seas may maintain action for breach of warranty of
seaworthiness and negligence against employer, where
repairer contracted for shipboard duty for a year and was on
vessel 24 hours a day, because repairer constitutes Jones
Act seaman. Yost v American Overseas Marine Corp. (1992, DC
Va) 798 F Supp 313, 1992 AMC 26 79.
Injured pipeline inspector has no cognizable
claim under Jones Act (46 USCS Appx section 688) for negligence,
where he worked as onshore pipeline man for dredging
operation, and never spent more than 15 minutes on board
dredge at any one time, because inspector was never exposed
to "perils of sea" and is not seaman. Loyd v Ram Indus.
(1999, SD Ala) 64 F Supp 2d 1235.
Summary judgment is granted against worker,
because as ship repairer on barge, he is covered exclusively
under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33
USCS section 901 et seq.) and excluded from Jones Act (46 Appx.
USCS section 688) coverage; mere fact repairer may be permanent
employee is insufficient to create argument that he is
"seaman", since "seaman" must have permanent connection with
vessel. Williams v Weber Management Services, Inc. (1987, MD
La) 661 F Supp 391.
In
action brought under Jones Act by bridge repair worker who
was injured when he fell from moored barge into cofferdam,
there was sufficient evidence from which jury could conclude
that worker was seaman within meaning of Jones Act where,
though worker performed bulk of work in cofferdam, he was
"permanently" assigned to barge in that all equipment needed
for bridge repair job was on barge, worker and other crew
members ate lunch on barge, all workers remained on it when
it was moved from place to place, and injured worker
performed minor tasks on barge, including some of which
aided in navigation function of vessel. Allen v Mobile
Interstate Piledrivers (1985, Ala) 475 So 2d
530.
Mechanic repairing
ship at dock in navigable waters is seaman for purposes of
46 USCS Appx section 688. Colonna Shipyard v Bland (1928) 150 Va
349, 143 SE 729, 59 ALR 497.
Employee engaged in repairing vessel while on
marine railway was not entitled to recover under 46 USCS
Appx section 688. Giske v Austrem (1931, Wash) 1931 AMC
1200.
190. Scientific and technical personnelScientific personnel are not considered seamen
under provisions of 46 USCS Appx section 688 et seq. Presley v
The Vessel Carribean Seal (1983, CA5 Tex) 709 F2d 406, cert
den 464 US 1038, 79 L Ed 2d 165, 104 S Ct
699.
Hydrographic surveyor
fatally injured during temporary land-based assignment
retained status as seaman where shore assignment was to be
of fairly short duration, was directly related to employer's
business as well as to worker's employment as hydrographic
surveyor, and worker could not have refused assignment
without endangering employment status. Smith v Odom Offshore
Surveys, Inc. (1986, CA5 La) 791 F2d
411.
Field biologist,
observer for Secretary of Commerce on Japanese squid boat,
was not seaman for purpose of Jones Act where he was
business invitee aboard vessel solely because of Driftnet
Impact Monitoring Assessment and Control Act Treaty, and not
involved in navigation of vessel. O'Boyle v United States
(1993, CA11 Fla) 993 F2d 211, 7 FLW Fed C
428.
Marine scientists who
drowned while engaged in oceanographic research project as
part of their professional responsibilities on boat
especially equipped for voyage and prepared to be at sea for
some time were engaged in maritime employment. Re Holoholo
Litigation (1983, DC Hawaii) 557 F Supp
1024.
Individual working on
pipe-laying barge as X-ray technician with duty of
conducting examinations of pipeline welds was seaman, where
(1) his assignment was coextensive with that of other crew
members, (2) he was expected to begin job with other crew
members and remain to its completion, taking only those
breaks that other crew members took, (3) he was as subject
to perils of sea as other crew members, (4) his assignment
was not sporadic, and (5) he and other crew members remained
at sea at night; fact that barge was not equipped with
living quarters and that sleeping quarters were provided on
fixed platform does not change result. Yelverton v Mobile
Laboratories, Inc. (1985, SD Miss) 608 F Supp 400, affd (CA5
Miss) 782 F2d 555.
Service
representative for company that sold solids control
equipment for use in oil industry was not seaman within
meaning of Jones Act where, though his work required him to
go out on calls to inland and offshore rigs to either
install equipment or trouble-shoot problems with
previously-rented equipment, he worked indiscriminately on
land-based rigs, fixed offshore platforms, and special
purpose drilling vessels, depending upon the needs of the
company's various customers, and he would stay at job site
only long enough to complete particular job in question,
subject to usual delays occasioned by whether,
transportation, and other operations on the rig in question.
Moser v Aminoil, U.S.A., Inc. (1985, WD La) 618 F Supp
774.
Person designated as
hydrographic survey party chief who was to be permanently
assigned to particular vessel and who would perform
virtually all his work aboard that vessel on Mississippi
river would meet test for seaman status under Jones Act -46
USCS Appx section 688-, and would retain seaman status during
period of temporary assignment to shore duty while vessel
was being outfitted when temporary shore assignment was to
be of short duration and work was related to seaman
employment as hydrographic surveyor as work that had to be
done before surveying on river could be done. Smith v Odom
Offshore Surveys, Inc. (1984, MD La) 588 F Supp 1168, affd
(CA5 La) 791 F2d 411.
191. Shoreside workersMan
injured while at work upon pier or abutment, even though
that projects into navigable water, is not within general
admiralty jurisdiction and may not recover under 46 USCS
Appx section 688. Jeffers v Foundation Co. (1936, CA2 NY) 85 F2d
24.
Plaintiff who was
injured while working on conveyor belt which was permanently
fixed to shore and firmly anchored to bottom of waterway by
pile clusters was not seaman within coverage of 46 USCS Appx
section 688 regardless of plaintiff's occasional activities aboard
power boat used to position vessels being loaded at conveyor
platform. Labit v Carey Salt Co. (1970, CA5 La) 421 F2d
1333.
Evidence did not
support District Court's findings that plaintiff was 46 USCS
Appx section 688 seaman where plaintiff had been employed
approximately 1 week prior to his going aboard barge for
first and only time, his employer was not barge owner,
plaintiff's duties of cutting grass, repairing bridge, and
land-based office work were not duties performed aboard
vessel, and he and other roustabouts were sent to barge to
do one job--of unloading. Dugas v Pelican Constr. Co. (1973,
CA5 La) 481 F2d 773, cert den 414 US 1093, 38 L Ed 2d 550,
94 S Ct 724.
Shore gang
crew members whose entire mode of operations aboard vessels,
though at time substantial, was entirely transitory and
dependent on particular need of defendant for assistance
aboard ship on any given day, did not have sufficient
permanent connection of any type to any vessel or group of
vessels and will not be afforded seaman status. Fazio v
Lykes Bros. S. S. Co. (1978, CA5 La) 567 F2d
301.
Seaman employed as
member of shore gang working on ships in harbor of navigable
waters, part of time on land and part on board ship, taking
orders from foreman not officer or crew member, was not
member of crew, and damages for injuries received while
doing such work must be sought under Longshore and Harbor
Workers' Compensation Act (33 USCS section 901 et seq.) and not
under 46 USCS Appx section 688. Kraft v A. H. Bull S. S. Co.
(1939, DC NY) 28 F Supp 437, 1939 AMC
1114.
Libellant, foreman of
shoreside gang loading and securing deck cargo on vessel,
was engaged in sort of work performed by longshoremen and
not primarily to aid navigation, consequently his remedy for
negligent injury is under Longshore and Harbor Workers'
Compensation Act (33 USCS section 901-944) rather than under 46
USCS Appx section 688. Skow v Gypsum Carrier, Inc. (1958, DC Cal)
164 F Supp 879, 1958 AMC 1169.
Whether shore-based worker is seaman is
essentially question of fact to be determined by jury or
other trier of facts, but there are cases which lend
themselves to decision on issue on motion for summary
judgment because essential facts are not in dispute. Lewis v
Roland E. Trego & Sons, Inc. (1973, DC Md) 359 F Supp
1130, affd in part and vacated in part on other grounds (CA4
Md) 501 F2d 372.
To satisfy
"connection with" criterion, relationship between individual
and vessel or specific vessel must not be spasmodic and must
be substantial in point of time and work; plaintiff whose
connection was essentially with shore gang and not with
specific group of vessels, was not seaman. Buna v Pacific
Far East Line, Inc. (1977, ND Cal) 441 F Supp
1360.
Plaintiff was not
seaman within meaning of 46 USCS Appx section 688 where at time of
injury he was shoreside worker, performing maintenance on
docked vessels, and had been so employed for 3 to 4 months
even though prior to this time he was employed as seaman
aboard vessel. White v Louisiana Menhaden Co. (1980, ED La)
498 F Supp 126.
192. Special purpose vessel workersTerm "seaman" as used in 46 USCS Appx section 688 is
applicable to workman on special-purpose structure, such as
floating drilling platform, submersible barge, derrick, or
dredge, if he serves in capacity which contributes to
accomplishment of function or mission of structure, even
though he has nothing to do with navigation, as such,
nothing to do with operation or welfare of vessel in sense
that vessel is means of transport by water, and is not
member of ship's company in sense that a ship's cook or
carpenter are necessary or appropriate members of ship's
complement. Offshore Co. v Robison (1959, CA5 La) 266 F2d
769, 75 ALR2d 1296 (disagreed with Johnson v John F. Beasley
Constr. Co. (CA7 Ill) 742 F2d 1054, cert den (US) 84 L Ed 2d
328, 105 S Ct 1180 and (disagreed with Barrett v Chevron,
U.S.A., Inc. (CA5 La) 781 F2d 1067)).
Application of 46 USCS Appx section 688 to workman
injured on special purpose vessel depends upon evidence
injured workman is permanently assigned to vessel or
performs substantial part of his work on vessel; and that
capacity in which he was employed or duties he performed
contributes to function of vessel, to accomplishment of its
mission, or to operation or welfare of vessel in terms of
its maintenance during its movement or during anchorage for
its future trips. Johnson v American Pile Driving Co. (1975,
WD Wash) 397 F Supp 11.
Injured worker under 46 USCS section 688 is entitled
to jury determination of "seaman" status where worker
alleges he was solely and exclusively assigned to vessel
used solely and exclusively for sandblasting, that worker
performed substantial work aboard vessel, and that worker
aided in navigation of vessel. Coe v L & L Sandblasting,
Inc. (1988, WD La) 707 F Supp 874.
Jones Act (46 USCS Appx section 688) claim of
cocktail server and waitress on riverboat casino will not be
denied summarily, even though her duties never "took her to
sea" or exposed her to "perils of sea," where casino
unequivocally treated her as Jones Act worker, because jury
could reasonably find that she was maritime employee
substantially connected in terms of duration and nature to
fully functioning gaming vessel. Lara v Harveys Iowa
Management Co. (2000, SD Iowa) 109 F Supp 2d
1031.
Former slot machine
attendant on gambling boat recovers $ 20,000 for wrist
injury suffered while attempting to lift 1,000 pound bank
off leg of another employee, despite claim that primary
purpose of boat was casino gambling, because she was seaman
employed by maritime vessel engaged in maritime activity at
time of injury, and can maintain action against her employer
under Jones Act (46 USCS Appx section 688) or general maritime
law. Weaver v Hollywood Casino - Aurora, Inc. (2000, ND Ill)
121 F Supp 2d 1169.
193. StowawaysStowaway or
trespasser, even though put at work aboard ship as result of
choice given by master of vessel, is not seaman for purposes
of 46 USCS Appx section 688. The Western World (1940, DC NY) 31 F
Supp 340.
194. Temporary, casual, or part-time workersFerry company's part-time employee whose duties
were sometimes on shore and sometimes on boat, either at
wheel or otherwise, who slept and ate two meals day on
shore, was seaman within meaning of 46 USCS Appx section 688.
Weiss v Central R. Co. (1956, CA2 NY) 235 F2d 309, 1956 AMC
1473.
Injured employee
could not recover under 46 USCS Appx section 688 where his duties
aboard tender were temporary and insufficient to afford him
seaman's status. Keener v Transworld Drilling Co. (1972, CA5
La) 468 F2d 729.
Seaman or
crew member status for purposes of 46 USCS Appx section 688 was
not afforded to one assigned to accompany another employee
on 3 and 1/2 hour, 45 mile trip on Altamaha River in 17 foot
outboard motorboat and whose primary duties were to take
samples of wood pulp within employer's plant and to conduct
certain test and while he was on motorboat trip he was
collecting water samples in accordance with plant's effluent
control program. Brown v ITT Rayonier, Inc. (1974, CA5 Ga)
497 F2d 234.
Libellant,
employed as substitute cook for few hours, through personal
arrangement between himself and cook, was not member of crew
or employee of steamship company. The San Antonio (1931, DC
Pa) 1 F Supp 221, affd (CA3 Pa) 61 F2d
623.
Deckhand was not
seaman within meaning of 46 USCS Appx section 688 where he was not
member of crew of any vessel, was not permanently assigned
to vessel, held no temporary assignment to vessel at time of
accident, was assigned on land, was employed aboard ship for
only short period of time (7 to 13 days in 15 years), slept
and lived ashore at all time, was paid an hourly wage,
worked eight hour day, and held no seaman's papers. Wolbert
v New York (1970, ED NY) 314 F Supp 528.
Person on board police vessel as "on-the-job"
auxiliary police trainee was not member of crew enabling
widow to have claim under 46 USCS Appx section 688 where decedent
was never aboard vessel until day of his death, even on day
in question he was assigned no specific duties, and he was
for all practical purposes observer and not seaman. Klarman
v Santini (1973, DC Conn) 363 F Supp 910, affd (CA2 Conn)
503 F2d 29, cert den 419 US 1110, 42 L Ed 2d 807, 95 S Ct
785.
Single occurrence of
plaintiff cooking breakfast aboard vessel does not create
seaman status for purposes of Jones Act, and thus he is not
entitled to recover under act. Rutledge v A & P Boat
Rentals, Inc. (1986, WD La) 633 F Supp
654.
Policeman who was
injured while operating police launch in canal was not
seaman for purposes of 46 USCS Appx section 688 where policeman
was employed primarily as radar operator in traffic division
and had operated launch on 12 to 15 occasions in course of
two and a half years' employment. Plantation v Roberts
(1976, Fla) 342 So 2d 69.
195. Tugboat personnelSurviving
family members of deceased seaman are not barred by 46 USCS
Appx section 688 from recovering nonpecuniary damages from barge
owner, where seaman was killed after retrieving barge which
was owned by company other than his employer, because for
purposes of wrongful death action under general maritime law
against defendant that was not his employer, seaman does not
constitute Jones Act seaman. Sugden v Puget Sound Tug &
Barge Co. (1992, WD Wash) 796 F Supp
455.
Tugboat mechanic may
proceed with Jones Act (46 USCS Appx section 688) claim against
harbor tugboat operator, even though he stated during
deposition that he was not aware of operator's negligence or
defective equipment, where shore-based mechanic's job was to
repair engines on operator's tugs wherever needed, because
25 tugs owned by operator constituted "fleet" to which
mechanic was permanently assigned, mechanic was arguably
"seaman," and his ambiguous answer was not admission of
nonnegligence. Vowell v G & H Towing Co. (1994, SD Tex)
870 F Supp 162.
Tugboat
operator working with dredge and injured while on attendant
fuel barge in canal near navigable stream did not come under
46 USCS Appx section 688 where he ate and slept on shore and was
paid on hourly basis. Sikes v Ft. Myers Constr. Co. (1966,
Fla) 191 So 2d 265.
Claimant who operated tug which pushed dredge
which was cutting inland channel between navigable streams
was not seaman within meaning of 46 USCS Appx section 688. State v
Florida Development Com. (1966, Fla) 191 So 2d
267.
196. Volunteers46 USCS Appx section
688 does not extend benefits to passengers or licensees
aboard vessel who may volunteer to do single acts of
character such as is usually performed by members of crew.
Buffalo & Grand Island Ferry Co. v Williams (1928, CA2
NY) 25 F2d 612.
Volunteer
member of Westport, Connecticut civil defense, receiving
on-the-job training aboard Westport Police Department's
patrol boat was not seaman within meaning of 46 USCS Appx section
688 since connection with vessel was temporary and person
was not assigned to specific duties. Klarman v Santini
(1974, CA2 Conn) 503 F2d 29, cert den 419 US 1110, 42 L Ed
2d 807, 95 S Ct 785.
Issue
of whether adult volunteer, "mate" on outing with Sea
Explorers, was "seaman" for purpose of Jones Act was genuine
issue of material fact sufficient to survive motion for
summary judgment. Boy Scouts of Am. v Graham (1996, CA9 Cal)
76 F3d 1045, 96 CDOS 1031, 96 Daily Journal DAR 1726, 1996
AMC 897.
Genuine issue of
material fact as to whether injured adult volunteer and
"mate" on outing with Boy Scouts had connection to vessel
that was substantial in duration and nature precluded
summary judgment. BSA v Graham (1996, CA9 Cal) 86 F3d
861.
46 USCS Appx section 688
offers no protection to one who sustains injury while
engaged in maritime work as volunteer. Duarte v Christie
Scow Corp. (1939, DC NY) 27 F Supp 894.
Boy Scout leader could not raise claim under
Jones Act (46 USCS Appx section 688), where volunteer leader was
injured diving off boat while supervising scouts on cruise,
because cruise was recreational and leader was not "seaman"
within meaning of Act. Maxwell v J. Baker, Inc. (1995, DC
Minn) 875 F Supp 1371.
197. WeldersWelder who met his
death while doing welding repair on boat in water was not a
seaman or member of crew of vessel. Rotolo v Halliburton Co.
(1963, CA5 La) 317 F2d 9, 1963 AMC 1793, cert den 375 US
852, 11 L Ed 2d 79, 84 S Ct 111.
Welder, assigned, berthed, and fed on
stationary production platform off coast of Louisiana who
was injured by some falling equipment while cutting header
supports to allow equipment to be loaded from platform onto
nearby barge failed to establish his status as "seaman" for
purposes of 46 USCS Appx section 688. Ross v Mobil Oil Corp.
(1973, CA5 La) 474 F2d 989, cert den 414 US 1012, 38 L Ed 2d
250, 94 S Ct 378.
Welder's
helper engaged in connection with contract to fabricate and
install metering facilities on offshore gas gathering
station who was injured aboard special purpose derrick
barge, which barge was used to transport men, equipment, and
material from one location to another and to load and unload
equipment and material from itself, other vessels, and
offshore structures, was "permanently assigned" to vessel
and thus attained seaman's status for purposes of 46 USCS
Appx section 688 where (1) deck of barge had been fitted with
temporary quarters for crew of which plaintiff was member
and they ate and slept on vessel, and (2) although derrick
had its own crew, plaintiff assisted in welding cracks in
barge at barge superintendent's request, worked with barge
owner's employees in washing deck, and helped load and
unload barge alongside barge owner's crewmembers operating
derrick. Davis v Hill Engineering, Inc. (1977, CA5 Tex) 549
F2d 314, reh den (CA5 Tex) 554 F2d 1065 and (ovrld on other
grounds Culver v Statler Boat Co. (CA5 La) 688 F2d Slater
Boat Co. (Ca5 La) 688 F2d 280, op withdrawn, in part (CA5
La) 722 F2d 114, cert den 467 US 1252, 82 L Ed 2d 842, 104 S
Ct 3537 and cert den 469 US 819, 83 L Ed 2d 37, 105 S Ct
90).
In action by welder's
helper under Jones Act arising from back injury sustained
when he was transferred in suspended personnel basket
between crew boat and barge, and for exacerbation of such
injury sustained while lifting section of pipe while
standing on barge, trial court erred in concluding that
worker was member of crew of vessel; such determination
should have been made in context of his entire employment
with his employer where helper's permanent job assignment
during such term of employment had not changed. Since record
revealed that helper's one year employment consisted of 70
to 80 percent work on platforms and no more than 20 to 30
percent work on vessels, helper did not perform substantial
portion of his work aboard vessel and thus failed to
establish he was member of crew. Barrett v Chevron, U.S.A.,
Inc. (1986, CA5 La) 781 F2d 1067.
Welder who was neither permanently assigned to,
nor performed substantial part of his work aboard, vessel or
fleet of vessels was not seaman for purposes of Jones Act,
46 USCS Appx section 688. Lormand v Superior Oil Co. (1987, CA5
La) 845 F2d 536, 1988 AMC 2362, cert den (US) 98 L Ed 2d
774, 108 S Ct 739, 1988 AMC 2400.
Injured worker who brought action under Jones
Act was not seaman where his duties included welding,
cutting off piling, construction on framework for bridge,
riding concrete buckets, and assisting in pouring of
concrete. Stephenson v McLean Contracting Co. (1988, CA4 Md)
863 F2d 340.
Welder who was
to work aboard barge floating off shore and do welding on
pipeline being laid by barge was seaman within meaning of 46
USCS Appx section 688. Porche v Gulf Mississippi Marine Corp.
(1975, ED La) 390 F Supp 624.
In offshore welder's action to recover damages
for injuries suffered in course of employment with
construction company, welder cannot be considered "seaman"
for purposes of 46 USCS Appx section 688, and has no entitlement
to maintenance and cure, where majority of his work was
performed on offshore platform, and he was not permanently
assigned to any vessel or fleet of vessels. Tinin v Laredo
Constr. (1997, SD Tex) 978 F Supp 700.
In offshore welder's action to recover damages
for injuries suffered in course of employment with
construction company, welder cannot be considered "seaman"
for purposes of 46 USCS Appx section 688, and has no entitlement
to maintenance and cure, where majority of his work was
performed on offshore platform, and he was not permanently
assigned to any vessel or fleet of vessels. Tinin v Laredo
Constr. (1997, SD Tex) 978 F Supp 700.
Welder injured standing on stern of vessel
while performing repairs on offshore drilling platform was
seaman within meaning of 46 USCS Appx section 688. Bell v National
Boat Corp. (1974, La App 3d Cir) 298 So 2d 327, cert den 421
US 911, 43 L Ed 2d 776, 95 S Ct 1565, reh den 421 US 981, 44
L Ed 2d 473, 95 S Ct 1984.
198. WatchmenWatchman who was
member of crew was seaman for purposes of 46 USCS Appx section
688. Grimberg v Admiral Oriental S. S. Line (1924, DC Wash)
300 F 619.
Night watchman
who boarded barge each night and left it following day was
not seaman within meaning of 46 USCS Appx section 688. Posavec v
Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp. (1952, DC NY) 106 F Supp
170.
Watchman, member of
crew, injured on vessel afloat and fully manned, equipped,
and ready to engage in commerce and navigation was seaman
for purposes of 46 USCS Appx section 688. Defiore v American S.S.
Co. (1952, DC NY) 110 F Supp 427.
Forklift operator employed aboard derrick
barge, who was injured while laying pipe offshore on
continental shelf was member of crew within meaning of 46
USCS Appx section 688. Davis v Associated Pipe Line Contractors,
Inc. (1968, WD La) 305 F Supp 1345, affd (CA5 La) 418 F2d
920, cert den 397 US 988, 25 L Ed 2d 396, 90 S Ct
1119.
199. MiscellaneousInjured
plaintiffs who were off-duty servicemen cast as extras in
filming of battle scene upon mock-up vessel used in making
of movie were not seamen within meaning of 46 USCS Appx section
688. Bullis v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. (1973, CA9
Hawaii) 474 F2d 392.
Harbor
workers and stevedores are not seamen, but all members of
ship's ocean-going crew are seamen, including cooks, hair
dressers, and telephone operators. Omar v Sea-Land Service,
Inc. (1987, CA9 Wash) 813 F2d 986.
Switcher in offshore gas field who conducted
assorted tests at oil sites to insure that oil and gas was
flowing freely is not seaman. Kerr-McGee Corp. v Ma-Ju
Marine Services, Inc. (1987, CA5 La) 830 F2d
1332.
Paint foreman who
performed substantial part of his work directing
sandblasting and painting of fixed platforms from vessel
which functioned as paint boat qualified for seaman status.
Wilander v McDermott International, Inc. (1989, CA5 La) 887
F2d 88, reh den, en banc (CA5 La) 894 F2d
406.
Public relations
officer of transportation company, injured while descending
ladder on board company's ship, was primarily employed as
land-based employee, and did not perform substantial amount
of work on vessel, and was therefore not "employee" for
purpose of Jones Act. Palmer v Fayard Moving & Transp.
Corp. (1991, CA5 Miss) 930 F2d 437.
Court adopts Fleet Seaman Doctrine, by which
Jones Act applies "seaman" status to employee who is
predominantly assigned by his employer to navigable vessel
but who occasionally is assigned by that same employer to
non-navigable vessels. Reeves v Mobile Dredging &
Pumping Co. (1994, CA3 NJ) 26 F3d 1247.
Land-based employee working on vessel who was
hired as temporary laborer only for duration of repairs and
did not sign ship's articles was not seaman entitled to
remedies of Jones Act. Heise v Fishing Co. (1996, CA9
Alaska) 79 F3d 903, 96 CDOS 1869, 96 Daily Journal DAR 3193,
1996 AMC 1217.
Plaintiff
who worked on rig consisting of portable truck-mounted
workover rig, driven onto deck of barge and bolted into
place 2 years prior to accident, designed to plug abandoned
wells in navigable waters, was seaman within meaning of
Jones Act. Manuel v P.A.W. Drilling & Well Serv. (1998,
CA5 La) 135 F3d 344, 1998 AMC 1390.
Musicians, employed to play for dances on
excursion steamer, are seamen for purposes of 46 USCS Appx section
688. The Sea Lark (1926, DC Wash) 14 F2d
201.
Civil employee of
United States who is hired to go into hold of vessel not in
navigation to clear out rubbish is not seaman for purposes
of 46 USCS Appx section 688. King v United States (1938, DC NY) 22
F Supp 992.
Floatman
employed to accompany carfloats in tow was not, in view of
restrictions on his duties, master or member of crew of
vessel, and hence his action under 46 USCS Appx section 688 for
injuries against tug operator would terminate in summary
judgment for defendant. Braner v Brooklyn Eastern Dist.
Terminal (1942, DC NY) 46 F Supp 302, 1942 AMC
1120.
Steamship agent is
not seaman within meaning of 46 USCS Appx section 688 where his
duties involve placing ship's register, load line, oil
pollution certificates and other papers aboard vessels
preparing to depart port. Hale v Tata Corp. (1980, SD Tex)
502 F Supp 502.
Service
representative for oil industry equipment company who would
install or trouble-shoot equipment on inland and offshore
rigs and who waited on tender anchored adjacent to
particular platform before going onto rig was not seaman,
since tender was not intended to be his base of operations
for offshore work with employer; even if employee had lived
continuously on tender while performing duties on platform
he would not have been seaman. Moser v Aminoil, U.S.A., Inc.
(1985, WD La) 618 F Supp 774.
Cleaning lady working 3 days a week on pleasure
yacht while at dock is "seaperson" under Jones Act,
notwithstanding that she never went to sea on the yacht and
did not contribute to the yacht's navigation, because: (1)
cleaning yacht "contributed to its function," (2) cleaning
lady could be deemed "permanently" assigned to vessel, and
(3) she did substantial part of her work on vessel. Lunsford
v Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. (1986, ED La) 635 F Supp
72.
Court has jurisdiction
over action resulting from fatal fall from ferry under 46
USCS Appx section 688, where decedent was employed year-round as
deck hand, because decedent was "seaman"; occurrence of fall
when ferry was docked for winter does not change result in
light of vessel maintenance comprising 80 percent of
decedent's annual duties. Estate of Rainsford v Washington
Island Ferry Line, Inc. (1988, ED Wis) 702 F Supp
718.
Grain elevator
worker's Jones Act (46 USCS Appx section 688) claim is denied,
where worker either unloaded and cleaned trucks bringing
grain to facility or loaded grain onto barges at river dock
but received no permanent assignment to particular barge or
fleet of barges and performed no portion of his work on only
one particular vessel, because worker does not qualify as
Jones Act seaman since he has not established relationship
to fleet of vessels. Newsom v Continental Grain Co. (1993,
DC Minn) 820 F Supp 1187.
Employee of logging company, who was injured
while attempting to untangle cables of crane on river barge,
was not "seaman" under 46 USCS Appx section 688, where employee,
whose principal job was operating a forklift on land, spent
no more than 10 percent of his time performing traditional
seaman tasks aboard barge, and, thus, employee was simply
land-based employee who happened to be working on barge at
time of injury. Hollingsworth v Anderson-Tully Co. (1996, ND
Miss) 940 F Supp 967.
Employees hired by charterer to conduct
fireworks display on barge were not "seamen," and, thus,
tugboat owner owed them no duty of seaworthiness under 46
USCS Appx section 688(a), where connection between employees and
barge clearly was transitory in nature. In re Lewis &
Clark Marine, Inc. (1999, ED Mo) 50 F Supp 2d 925, 1999 AMC
2764.
Jones Act (46 USCS
Appx section 688) claim of house cleaner is denied summarily, even
though she fell through open hatch in master stateroom of
yacht, suffering broken ankle and torn rotator cuff,
allegedly due to owner's failure to provide safe place to
work, because cleaner is not "seaman" since she had only
been on yacht once or twice before, and nothing in evidence
indicates that her duties, which included changing sheets,
cleaning bathrooms and galley, and vacuuming, "took her to
sea," or "regularly exposed her to perils of sea." Isrow v
"A Modo Mio" (2000, ED Mich) 112 F Supp 2d
641.
JONES
ACT- TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
|
|
Click on a box below to choose one of our 4 menus:
There is NO CHARGE for sending your case information to our law firm.
The information provided on this website is preliminary
and informational ONLY. It is not legal advice. The use of our
webpages does not establish an attorney-client
relationship. This website is copyright
1999-2020 and the contents of this website are the property of
Personal Injury Attorney William H Lawson. The Terms and Conditions of Use for this website and
our Privacy Policy are available
here for your consideration. All rights reserved.
Jones Act Cases - Decisions - Opinions
We thank you for visiting our site!
|
|