Opinion ID: 59421
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Stewart and vessels-to-be

Text: The district court held that the CAJUN EXPRESS was a vessel under Stewart because not only was it capable of transportation but it had also transported workers and equipment from Singapore to the Gulf of Mexico. We disagree, however, that Stewart was intended to apply to watercraft that are still under construction. “[W]e cannot overrule the decision of a prior panel unless such overruling is unequivocally directed by controlling Supreme Court precedent.” United States v. Zuniga-Salinas, 945 F.2d 1302, 1306 (5th Cir. 1991) (emphasis added). We conclude that our well-settled body of law in this area has not been effectively overruled. The language in Stewart is admittedly broad, and we have recognized that the Court’s decision significantly enlarges the types of unconventional and special purpose watercraft that now must be considered vessels that might not 8 No. 05-30963 have met the test before Stewart. See Holmes, 437 F.3d at 448. Stewart began, however, by framing the issue before it narrowly: “whether a dredge is a ‘vessel’ under [the LHWCA].” Stewart, 543 U.S. at 484. The Court decided that specific question, concluding that the First Circuit’s focus on an existing craft’s purpose and movement was inconsistent with the text of § 3 and the established meaning of “vessel” in general maritime law. We thus read Stewart’s instruction that a craft is a vessel if it is capable of marine transportation in the context of that case to negate the First Circuit’s test for an established structure. Stewart examined an already-completed structure in use for its intended purpose. Stewart did not concern what to do with ships and other structures under construction, and so the Court did not address whether § 3’s definition of vessel applies to incomplete structures that may be in a dry dock or a floating shipyard. In other words, Stewart did not consider whether an incomplete structure that “is not yet an instrumentality of commerce,” Williams, 452 F.2d at 958, is a vessel in navigation. Rather, Stewart stressed that the “in navigation” requirement had nothing to do with locomotion and instead meant that “structures may lose their character as vessels if they have been withdrawn from the water for extended periods of time.” Stewart, 543 U.S. at 496. But for a structure to be able to lose its vessel status by being taken out of navigation, it must be equally true that a structure may not attain vessel status before it is ever put into “navigation.” Other courts have similarly concluded that an incomplete structure that has not been put into navigation as an instrument of commerce is not a vessel. See Caruso v. Sterling Yacht & Shipbuilders, Inc., 828 F.2d 14, 15–16 (11th Cir. 1987); Frankel v. Bethlehem-Fairfield Shipyard, 132 F.2d 634, 635–36 (4th Cir. 1942). Moreover, courts have historically spoken of navigation in tandem with commerce. See, e.g., The Robert W. Parsons, 191 U.S. 17, 31 (1903) (holding that a barge drawn by horses in the Erie Canal was a vessel because “[s]o long as the 9 No. 05-30963 vessel is engaged in commerce and navigation it is difficult to see how the jurisdiction of admiralty is affected by its means of propulsion”); Cope v. Vallette Dry-Dock Co., 119 U.S. 625, 627–28 (1887) (noting that “[a] ship or vessel, used for navigation and commerce, though lying at a wharf, and temporarily made fast thereto, as well as her furniture and cargo, are maritime subjects”); People’s Ferry Co. of Boston v. Beers, 61 U.S. 393, 401 (1857) (“[T]he admiralty courts now exercise jurisdiction over rivers and inland waters, wherever navigation is or may be carried on, and extends to almost every description of vessel which may be employed in transporting our products to market. . . . The admiralty jurisdiction, in cases of contract, depends primarily upon the nature of the contract, and is limited to contracts, claims, and services, purely maritime, and touching rights and duties appertaining to commerce and navigation.”). That is not to say that only commercial structures may become vessels and implicate admiralty jurisdiction. See, e.g., Sisson v. Ruby, 497 U.S. 358, 363–67 (1990) (admiralty jurisdiction in tort requires inter alia that an incident have a potentially disruptive effect on maritime commerce and be substantially related to maritime activity, such as navigation, but the tortfeasor’s activity may be commercial or noncommercial). Rather, our precedent is not inconsistent with the historical perspective that vessels under construction are treated differently from completed vessels. See The Francis McDonald, 254 U.S. 242, 243–44 (1920) (holding in a contract case that shipbuilding has been considered a nonmaritime activity, whether or not the incomplete ship has been launched). We have previously noted “the historical tradition that vessels under construction give rise to neither a maritime contract nor a maritime tort.” Williams, 452 F.2d at 958 n.5; see also Alfred v. MV Margaret Lykes, 398 F.2d 684, 685 (5th Cir. 1968) (holding that an employee may not maintain a tort action against his employer for an injury sustained on a vessel that has been launched but not fully completed or commissioned). We do not read Stewart to change this body of law, 10 No. 05-30963 so that a structure under construction remains a non-vessel until it is complete and ready for duty upon the sea. We further think the preclusion from vessel status of crafts still under construction serves several important goals and is consistent with the concern for avoiding uncertainties and possible oscillation in and out of Jones Act status. See Stewart, 543 U.S. at 495 (asking whether a watercraft is motionless or moving is the kind of “snapshot” test previously rejected and would impermissibly allow structures to oscillate back and forth between Jones Act coverage). Our cases show that shipbuilders frequently begin the construction process in a shipyard at one location and then transport the partially completed craft to another location to finish the construction process. See, e.g., Garret, 799 F.2d at 1008 (barge hull transported by tug from shipyard in Houma, Louisiana, to Harvey, Louisiana, for completion of superstructure); Fredieu v. Rowan Cos., Inc., 738 F.2d 651, 652 (5th Cir. 1984) (ship partially constructed in Vicksburg, Mississippi, towed to Belle Chasse, Louisiana); Hollister v. Luke Constr. Co., 517 F.2d 920, 921 (5th Cir. 1975) (barge towed from Harvey, Louisiana, to Houma, Louisiana, to complete drilling rig). Along the way, hundreds of employees work to complete these partially-built structures. The CAJUN EXPRESS had over 200 men working on its completion. Stewart’s application to these vessels-to-be could have the consequence of creating vessels out of partial structures and transforming many land-based ship construction workers into Jones Act seaman, at least while they work in the service of the ship. At a minimum, it would unnecessarily expand the labyrinth that has developed in the case law concerning seaman status by requiring fact-intensive inquiries in the district courts into the relationship between such workers and the intended vessel. Cf. Chandris, 515 U.S. at 356 (“We have made a labyrinth and got lost in it.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Marine employers (and their 11 No. 05-30963 insurers) and employees, however, have an interest “in being able to predict who will be covered by the Jones Act . . . before a particular workday begins.” Id. at 363. That interest is hindered with respect to the construction of watercraft because there will be many points along the continuum of a ship’s construction at which one could rationally argue it is “practically capable” of transportation and therefore a vessel. For example, a structure might become a vessel when it is merely capable of floatation but is still in dry dock; when it can be merely towed or pushed; when the navigation or propulsion systems are installed; when it has been inspected and commissioned; when it has been accepted for delivery; when a crew has been assigned; or when it is actually put to use. Our prior cases settle this uncertainty by asking whether the craft is complete. We continue to believe that “[f]or there to be a seaman, there must first be a ship,” but “an incompleted vessel not yet delivered by the builder is not such a ship.” Williams, 452 F.2d at 958. The difficulty of applying Stewart to vessels under construction may be seen with respect to the CAJUN EXPRESS. The testimony showed that the rig lacked vital equipment for its operations and that no drilling contractor would have found the CAJUN EXPRESS acceptable for duty in the Gulf of Mexico. It strains reason to say that a craft upon the water that is under construction and is not fit for service is practically capable of transportation. Moreover, mobile offshore drilling units like the CAJUN EXPRESS are subject to extensive Coast Guard regulations. See 46 C.F.R. §§ 107–09. Before operations begin the unit must receive an Original Certificate of Inspection certifying that it complies with all Coast Guard requirements, including regulations governing lifesaving and firefighting equipment. Id. §§ 107.211, 107.231. The record here shows that the Coast Guard performed an initial walk through of the CAJUN EXPRESS on August 31, 2000, as the first step in the 12 No. 05-30963 process of certification, but the rig was not put into service until April or May 2001. That the structure was not yet certified as operational and in compliance with all safety requirements casts doubt as to the practicality of its use as a means of transportation. To follow the district court’s decision here also runs the risk of concluding that a vessel that may not be legally permitted to operate is nevertheless practically, rather than theoretically, capable of transportation.1 In short, although Stewart instructs that the “in navigation” requirement “is relevant to whether the craft is ‘used, or capable of being used’ for maritime transportation,” 543 U.S. at 496, that instruction does not consider in the first instance when a vessel-to-be becomes a vessel. We view that issue as a separate question from whether an unconventional watercraft is a vessel. We therefore hold that Stewart does not require us to modify our precedent regarding the vessel status of incomplete watercraft. As such, the CAJUN EXPRESS was not a “vessel in navigation,” and Cain was not a Jones Act seaman. Cain was thus not entitled to relief under the Jones Act for his September 10, 2000, injury.2