Case Name: Leroy CROOKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN MUTUAL LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1965-06-02
Citations: 175 So. 2d 875
Docket Number: No. 1427
Parties: Leroy CROOKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN MUTUAL LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before TATE, FRUGÉ and SAVOY, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 175
Pages: 875–879

Head Matter:
Leroy CROOKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN MUTUAL LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 1427.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Third Circuit.
June 2, 1965.
Rehearing Denied June 24, 1965.
C. O. Brown, Alexandria, for plaintiff-appellant.
Stafford & Pitts, by John L. Pitts, Alexandria, for defendants-appellees.
Before TATE, FRUGÉ and SAVOY, JJ.

Opinion:
SAVOY, Judge.
This is a suit by plaintiff for workmen's compensation filed under the Workmen's Compensation Act of this State for injuries received while employed in drilling operations thirty miles offshore in the Gulf of Mexico. The defendant employer and its insurer excepted to the court's jurisdiction ratione materiae, contending that plaintiff's exclusive remedy is under the federal act which extends the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act to the Outer Continental Shelf, U.S.C.A. 43:1331 et seq., and U.S.C.A. 33:901 et seq.
After a hearing in the district court, the exception was maintained ' and plaintiff's suit was dismissed. From this judgment plaintiff has appealed.
Counsel for appellant, in brief and in oral argument before this Court, contends plaintiff's employment was such as to bring it within the so-called twilight zone doctrine which commenced in 1942 with the decision by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Davis v. Department of Labor, etc., 317 U.S. 249, 63 S.Ct. 225, 87 L.Ed. 246, 248.
U.S.C.A. 43:1333, subsections (b) and (c) provide the following:
"(b) The United States district courts shall have original jurisdiction of cases and controversies arising out of or in connection with any operations conducted on the outer Continental Shelf for the purpose of exploring for, developing, removing or transporting by pipeline the natural resources, or involving rights to the natural resources of the subsoil and seabed of the outer Continental Shelf, and proceedings with respect to any such case or controversy may be instituted in the judicial district in which any defendant resides or may be found, or in the judicial district of the adjacent State nearest the place where the cause of action arose."
"(c) With respect to disability or death of an employee resulting from any injury occurring as the result of operations described in subsection (b) of this section, compensation shall be payable under the provisions of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compen'sation Act. "
The evidence in the instant case reflects that the plaintiff's duties were maritime in nature, were in connection with the subject matter defined in subsection (b) above, and were many miles offshore; and, consequently, the twilight zone doctrine has no application in this case.
In view of the provisions of U.S.C.A. 43:1333, subsections (b) and (c), this Court is of the opinion that the sole remedy of the plaintiff in the instant case is to file suit for workmen's compensation under the provisions of U.S.C.A. 33:901 et seq., known as the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. For a full discussion of the subject, see Goodart v. Maryland Casualty Company, La.App., 4 Cir., 1962, 139 So.2d 567.
For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the district court maintaining the exception to the jurisdiction ratione materiae is affirmed. Appellant to pay all costs of this suit.
Affirmed.