check when it determined that he was not a seaman as a matter of law and in fact what the trial court ended up doing was to limit that seemingly inquiry to about it two month period of time that he had worked for word sco season for the for the vessels when they were located up there in alaska and also as part of this maintenance or repair work that he did you also had to transfer equipment around the different  rejected the voyage test as being you know the factor that would make worker a jones axeman and in fact the worker in that case was injured while out in open waters on one of defend vessels and the court held that that particular worker was not a jones act team and as a matter of law now the supreme court said that there are issues the fact that could be presented to a jury but never the less you still ha to prove a substantial employment related connection to the vessels meaning that just because he was out in open waters and you happen to be injured out in open waters doesn't automatically make him a steamin as a matter of lock he still this man or a j coves vessels the last four of which were on a year round basis during the last four years he was in charge of the maintenance and the repair of those vessels and as part of those duties he was required to percent of the time but if you look at his entire employment history with this particular employer healy tibbets he was only temporarily working for the barge and in fact most of his work and entailed work on land navigation so that it is a water craft that is used or even capable of being used for transportation upon water it is considered a vessel as a matter of law for purposes of the jones act and in the case that we have here there is no doubt that these boats were moving around the in one waters of king county during the winter season if this court were to want to limit the braved the ocean swells and in that case the court did not preclude the finding that brown mark water workers can be jones axeman and ultimately they are issues of fact that should our plan unless the court has other interest is for me to take care of this very quickly and then defer that's what mr madden on the jones act i could go through the history i could go through the structure i could talk about the longshore act and how between various courts and congress over time a system of remedies developed for hard workers especially hard workers who sometimes are employed by the us to loners unless the court wants me to i won't get on to that history what we precisely get to the point first there is no allegation there is no contention in this briefing for in that argument there is that there is any issue of fact as to the nine o five the dismissal it is strictly a point of law unlike what we hear about the the fact of the matter is that this man was working as a repairer at the time of this injury under nine o five the although when a vessel owner both owns the vessel and employs harbor chase and that's one where an individual much like much like our plenty of here is working and the issue there was whether at the moment of injury he had to be doing repair work in that case he was repair spending much of his time repairing but at the moment of injury mr heisley was handling a morning line a traditional siemens duty the contention there was that you could not have the nine o five b repair exclusion in that case because at the moment of injury he was not doing repair work one circuit said no he does he does repair work in this employment relationship therefore the nine of five being negligence claim against that contention in this case is that and the sole contention in this case is that the trial court's decision should be reversed because mr hyde because the plaintiff here was not injured on the specific boat he was doing any repair work he doesn't have a nine to five be claimed even if at the moment of injury he was injured more in line handling and more in life and that's because the issue is the employment relationship the entire employment relationship now if i may and then he also gets drones that semen benefits but he took his long short comp benefits and he is entitled as a long shore harbor worker com perceiver to say i'm going to sue my employer in negligence if i believe that that employer not look at the moment of injury because as i've already said he was injured handling morning lines not doing repairing what mr neil james mr james wants to do the man with two first name he wants to say that the moment mon a moment of injury counts in terms of what best vessel he is on i e was he at that moment repairing the vessel upon which he was hurt and that's a fictional requirement there is reference to congressional the congressional record that speaks of a singular vessel in the legislative history that basically explained what they were doing and they said when a person is repairing a ship he should absolutely with that i will primarily c based duties mr james was a ship repair mr james has always been as you prepare he has worked as a welder on above he has done welding on shore when he was in the seattle yard fifty percent of his time was spent in the in the you're right it's like it's not a clear cut this rejection of if you look at the evidence actually been submitted here it is just statements that i can usually help move us towards i occasionally moved growth there there has to be more than just duty in norton the warner de barge man was held to be a seaman as a matter of law the barge man lived on the barge took care of the lines tightening or slacking them as needed repaired leaks pumped out the barge did th