Opinion ID: 40567
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Our Pre-Stewart “Vessel” Jurisprudence

Text: 11 Hufnagel v. Omega Serv. Indus., Inc., 182 F.3d 340, 34546 (5th Cir. 1999) (citing Burchett, 48 F.3d at 176). 12 Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 347, 359 (1995) (quoting McDermott Int’l, Inc. v. Wilander, 498 U.S. 337, 355 (1991)). 13 Id. 8 “The existence of a vessel is a ‘fundamental prerequisite to Jones Act jurisdiction’ and is at the core of the test for seaman status.”14 The term “vessel” has, however, escaped precise definition. The exotic watercraft that have been deemed vessels and the heavy inquiry that surrounds each analysis of an unconventional craft’s status has led even this court to recognize that the “three men in a tub would . . . fit within our definition [of a Jones Act seaman], and one probably could make a convincing case for Jonah inside the whale.”15 Historically, we have noted that the term “vessel” connotes a structure designed or used for “transportation of passengers, cargo or equipment from place to place across navigable waters.”16 “As a general principle, where the vessel status of an unconventional craft is unsettled, it is necessary to focus upon ‘the purpose for which the craft is constructed and the business in which it is engaged.’”17 “The greater the structure’s resemblance to 14 Daniel v. Ergon, Inc., 892 F.2d 403, 407 (5th Cir. 1990) (quoting Bernard v. Binnings Constr. Co., 741 F.2d 824, 828 (5th Cir. 1984)). 15 Burks v. Am. River Transp. Co., 679 F.2d 69, 75 (5th Cir. 1982). 16 Cook v. Belden Concrete Prods., 472 F.2d 999, 1002 (5th Cir. 1973). 17 Gremillion v. Gulf Coast Catering Co., 904 F.2d 290, 292 (5th Cir. 1990) (quoting Blanchard v. Engine & Gas Compressor Servs., Inc., 575 F.2d 1140, 1142 (5th Cir. 1978)). 9 conventional seafaring craft, the greater the odds of securing vessel status.”18 To evaluate the purpose for which a craft is constructed, we have considered: (1) whether the owner assembled or constructed the craft to transport passengers, cargo, or equipment across navigable waters; (2) whether the craft is engaged in that service; (3) whether the owner intended to move the craft on a regular basis; (4) the length of time that the craft has remained stationary; and (5) the existence of other “objective vessel features,” such as: (a) navigational aids; (b) lifeboats and other life-saving equipment; (c) a raked bow; (d) bilge pumps; (e) crew quarters; and (f) registration with the Coast Guard as a vessel.19 To determine the business in which the craft is engaged, “evaluating the craft’s transportation function is the key to determining the craft’s status.”20 When the transportation function of the craft is merely incidental to the craft’s primary purpose, we have consistently held that the craft is not a vessel.21 On the other hand, when the transportation function of the craft is “an important part of the business in which the craft was engaged,” we have generally found the craft to be a vessel, even if it has also 18 Id. 19 Manuel, 135 F.3d at 350-51; Gremillion, 904 F.2d at 293. 20 Manuel, 135 F.3d at 351 (emphasis added). 21 See id. 10 served as a work platform.22 We have attributed three common attributes to nonvessels: (1) The structure was constructed to be used primarily as a work platform; (2) the structure is moored or otherwise secured at the time of the accident; and (3) although the platform is capable of movement, and is sometimes moved across navigable waters in the course of normal operations, any transportation function is merely incidental to the platform’s primary purpose.23