Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 30441 Su m m ar y Cal endar
J O H N J O N E S , P la in tiff

–A p p e lla n t, v. C O O P E R T . S M IT H S T E V E D O R IN G C O ., IN C ., D efen da n t–A pp el l ee .

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i tedS tates D i stri ct C ou rt f ort he E as t er n D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U SD C N o. 2: 08- C V

- 3879
B ef ore G A R Z A , C L E M E N T , an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R IA M: * Joh n Jon es app eal s t h e di strict co u rt ’ s di sm i ssalof hi s c l ai m un der § 9 0 5 (b ) of th e L o n g sh o re a n dH a rb o r W o rk e rs ’C o m p e n sa tion A ct (L H W C A). We a f f i r m. I T h i s l aw sui tari ses ou tof i nj u ri es Jones sustai n ed w h i l e w orki n g f or C oo perT. St eve dor i ng C o. , I nc. ( C oo per) as a l ongs hor em an i n t he hol d of a c ar go United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D November

17, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 30441

Threadgill v. P

rudent ial Sec. Grou

p, I nc. , 1 4 5F .3 d 2 8 6 , 2 9 2( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 9 8). 1 Bru mfield v. Hollins , 5 5 1 F .3 d 3 2 2 , 3 2 6( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 8). 2 3 3U .S .C
. §§ 9 0 4 -0 5 ; Levene v. Pin tail En te rs., I nc. , 9 4 3F .2 d 5 2 8 , 5 3 1 ( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 9 1 ). 3 2 barge i n t h e M i ssissi pp iR iver. Th e cargo barge w as m oored t o a cr an e barge, t he D EN I SE M , o w ne d b y Coo pe r . Coo pe rw as r e s po ns ibl e f o r us i ng t he c r ane o n t he D EN I SE M t o t r ans fe rc ar go l o ad s f ro m t he ho l d o f

a no t he rv e s s e l , t he M /VM A SS E N TE R PR I SE , t o t he c ar go bar ge. Jones ’ s dut y w as t o unhook c ar go as i tw as l o w e r e d o nt o t he c ar go b ar ge b y t he c r ane . J o ne s w as i nj ur e d when a lo a do f c a r g o s tr u c k h im a n dp in n e dh im a g a in s t t h e w a ll o f th e b a r g e . Jones i ni t i al l y sue d C oo per und er t he Jones A c tand ge ner alm ar i t i m e l aw bu tl ateram en ded hi s s u i tt o i n cl u de an al t erna t ive cl ai m of vesselneg l i gen ce u n der § 905(b) of

t h e L H W C A
. Th e di st ri ctcourtf i rstgran t ed su m m ary j u dg m en tforC ooper on J on es’ s cl ai m s u n der t h e Jon es A ct , hol di n g t h at Jones di d n o t q u a li fya s a seam an . Th e courtl atergran t ed su m m ary j u dg m en tf or C ooper on J on es’ s LH W C Acl ai m on the groun d that J o n e s’s i nj u ri es w ere not c aus e d b y ve s s e lne gl i ge nc e , b utr at he rb y t he ne gl i ge nc e o f p e r s o ns pr o vi di ng s te v e d o r in gs e r v ic e s to th e v e s s e l. J o n e s a p p e a ls o n lyh is L H W C Acla im
. II W e r e vi e w t he g r anto f am o t i o n f

o rs um m ar y j udg m e ntde no vo , a pplyi ng th e sa m e sta n d a rdas th e d i stri ct cou rt. S u m m a ryj u d gm e n t i s ap p rop ri a te 1
w h en t h e com petent su m m ary j u dg m en tev i den ce d em on st rat es t h at t h ere are no g e nui ne i s s ue s o f

m at e r i alfac tand t he m o vi ng pa r t y i s ent i t l e d t o j udg m e nt a s ama t t e ro f

l a w. 2 Th e L HW CA c r e a t e s ac o m p e n s a t i o n s c h e m e f o ri nj u r e dl o n g s h o r e m e n, si m i l ar t o st ate w orkers’com pen sati on law s, tha tgen eral l y repl aces negl i gen ce cau ses of

act i on againstem pl oyers. Sect i on 905 (b) , how ever, perm i t s a 3N o. 09- 30441

3 3U .S .C
. § 9 0 5 (b). 4 Rob insonv. Orien t Mar i neC o. L td
. , 50 5 F .3d 3 64, 365(5th Cir. 2 007) (quoting 5 Pimen tal v. L TD C

anad ian Pac. Bu l , 9 6 5F .2 d 1 3 , 1 5( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 9 2))
. I d
. (quo ting Sin

gleton v. Guang

zhou Ocean Shi

p p i ngC o. , 79F .3d 2 6, 2 8 (5 th Cir. 6 1 9 9 6))
. 3 3U .S .C
. § 9 0 5 (b).

7 Lev ene, 943F .2d at 5 31. 8 See id. 9 3 lo n g s h o r e m a n to s u e fo rinju r ie s re s u ltin gfr o m th e n e g lig e n c e o f a v e s s e l. A

4
ve s s e lo w ne rm ayb e l i ab l e t o al o ngs ho r e m an i nj ur e d d ur i ng s t e ve do r i ng o p e r a tio n s u n d e rth r e e cir c u m s ta n c e s : 1) i f t h e vesselow n er fai l s t o w a rn o n t u rni n g over t h e shi p of hi dde n de f

e c t s o f w hi c h he s ho ul d ha ve kno w n. 2 ) fo rinju r yca u s e db yh a z a r d s u n d e rth e co n tr o l o f th e s h ip
. 3) i f t he ve s s e l o w ne r fail s t o i nt e r ve ne i n t he s t e ve do r e ’ s o pe r at i o ns w he n he ha s a c t ualkno w l e dg e b o t h o f t he ha z ard an d t hatt he s t e ve do r e , i n t he e xe r c i s e o f o b v i o u s ly i m pr o vi de ntj udg m e nt , m e ans to w ork on i n the fa ce of i t an dthe refore can n ot be r e lie d o n to rem ed y it
. 5 But“ t he pr i m ar y r e s po ns ibil i t y f o rt he s af

e t y o f t he l o ngs ho r e m e n r e s t s o n t he st e ve do r e . ” A l o ngs ho r e m an c anno ts ue t he v e s s e lf o ri nj ur i e s c aus e d b y t he 6
n egl i gen ce of

persons eng aged i n st eved ori n g servi ces. 7 H ere, the vesselow n er w as cond u ct i n g i t s ow n st eved ori n g operati on s. W h e n a lo n g s h o r e m a n ’ s e m p lo y e r a c ts in s u c h a d u a l c a p a c ity , th e e m p lo y e ris l i able f or act s of

vesseln egl i gen ce bu tsti l l“ret ai n s i t s i m m u n i t y f or acts t ak en in its ca p a c itya s a n e m p lo y e r[o f th e s te v e d o r e ].” A c c o r d in g ly , d e te r m in in gin 8
w h ic h ca p a c ityC o o p e ra n dits e m p lo y e e s a c te dis cr itic a l. 9N o. 09- 30441

Durr v. Global Marine, I nc. , 6 7 3F .2 d 7 4 0 , 7 4 1 ( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 8 2). 10 4 Jo n e s c o n t e n d s t h a tt h e r e a r e i s s u e s o f mat e r i a lfa c ta s t o wh e t h e rt he em p l oye es he all ege s w er e ne gl i gentw er e a c t i ng i n t hei rc apac i t i es as st eved ores or as agen t s f or t h e vesselow n er. H e al l ege s th a t t w o C ooper em pl oye es w er e ne gl i gent : C as ey C urt i s, th e j ob super i nt endentw ho w as ove r se ei ng t he c a r g o o p e r a t i o n, and St ephen Tayl or , t he c r ane o per at orw ho w as overseei n g a tr ai n ee operati n g t h e cr an e w h en t h e i n ci den tocc u rred. Jones as s e r t s t hatCur t i s w as ne gl i ge nti n c o nduc t i n g t he s af e t y m e e t i ng be f

o r e t he st eved ori n g opera t i o n b y f aili ng t ohol d the m eet i n g w i t h both t h e l on gsh orem en a n dth e cr a n e o p e r a to r s . J o n e s a lle g e s th a t T a y lo rw a s n e g lig e n t in h is sup ervi si on of th e tr a i n ee, w h o Jon es c l ai m s operat ed the crane i n a m et h od di f ferent f rom t h e m et h od the l on gsh orem en expected. H e argu es t h at bot h of t he s e ac t s of

sup e r vi s o r y ne gl i ge nc e w e r e re l at e d t o t he “ c o r po r at e co nc e r n a nd i nt e r e s t s ” o f

Coo pe r , a nd t hat , a s s uc h, t he a c t i o ns w e r e a tl e as tpa rt l y i n t he e m p lo y e e s ’ca p a c itie s a s th e a g e n ts o f th e v e s s e l o w n e r . W e t h i n k i tcl ear t h at t h ese al l eged act s of neg l i gen ce w ere i n t h e C ooper e m p lo y e e s ’ca p a c i t i e s a s s te v e d o r e s . L o a d in ga n du n lo a d in gca r g o a r e cla s s ic st eved o r i ng ac t ivit i e s . Thus a l l e ga t i o ns o f e m pl o ye e ne gl i ge nc e w i t h r e gard 10 t o l o ad i ng andunl oad i ng c ar go a r e g e ne r al l y al l e ga t i o ns o f ne gl i ge nc e i n t he
e m p lo y e e ’ s s te v e d o r e ca p a c ity
. H e r e , J o n e s a lle g e s th a t C u r tis n e g lig e n tly fai l e d t o ho l d aj o i nts af e t y m eet i n g w i t h r e ga r d t o t he l o ad i ng andunl o ad i ng o f c ar go and t hat Tay l o r w as ne gl i ge nt i n hi s s upe r vi s i o n o f a t r ai ne e l o ad i ng andunl o ad i ng c ar go . Bot h o f t he s e a l l e ga t i o ns r e l at e t o t r ad i t i o nals t e ve do r i ng a c tiv itie s a n dh a v e n o a s c e r ta in a b le tie to v e s s e l n e g lig e n c e . Jon es argu es t h at t h e al l eged act s of neg l i gen ce w ere perf orm ed at l east pa rt l y i n t h e em pl oyees’capaci t i es as agents of t h e vesselow n e r sin ce t h ey i n vol ve “ corporat e concerns an d i n t erest s. ” H e cit es Pi c hof f v . Bi s s o Towbo atN o. 09- 30441

7 4 8F .2 d 3 0 0( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 8 4). 11 Id
. at30 3. 12 I d
. 13 I d
. 14 5 Co. , I n c. in s u p p o r to f h is a r g u m e n t . T h e r e , t h e c o u r t h e ld t h a t a s u p e r v is o r ’s 11
c o m m e ntt o “hur r y up” w i t h ar e pa i rs o t hatt he v e s s e lc o ul d b e tak en to a custom er t h e nex tdayw as an act i on i n hi s c ap aci t y as agen tof the sh i pow n er. 12 The c o ur tr e as o ne d t hatt he o r de r w as “ gui de d by [] c o r po r at e c o nc e r n” s i nc e t he ow n er w ou l d l ose m on ey i f the vesselw as n otprovi ded t o t h e cust om er. Jones 13 contend s t h at t h i s c ase i s l i ke P ich off si n ce s afet y m ee tin g s and t rai n i n g are c o r p o r a te co n c e r n s . J o n e s m isa p p re h e n d s th e p o in t of P ich off
. T h e court h el d that t h e “h u rry u p” c om m en tw as m ot ivated i n part by t h e com pa n y’ s c orporate i n t erest s as a vess elow n er . But he r e , t he r e i s no i ndi c at i o n t hatt he r e l e va ntt r ai ni ng and 14 safet y m eet i n gs rel ate t o C ooper’ s i n t erestas a vesselow n er. T h e al l eged
n egl i gen ce does not rel ate t o vesselcondit ion s o r a v esselm i ssi on . I trel ates sol el y t o st eved ori n g operati on s and t h u s provi des n o basis f or a t ortact i on u n d e r§ 9 0 5 (b ). T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t co r r e c tlyg r a n te ds u m m a r yju d g m e n t o n th is is s u e . * * * F o rt h e f

o r e g o i n gr e a s o n s , t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s j u d g me n ti s A F F I RMED.