Opinion ID: 2639484
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Horton was an employee.

Text: In a related argument, MSS claims that Horton was not an employee of MSS and therefore not able to bring Jones Act or unseaworthiness claims. At the conclusion of the trial, the court granted a directed verdict finding that Horton was an employee of MSS and did not submit the issue to the jury. MSS asserts that this constitutes reversible error and that the question whether Horton was an employee should have been submitted to the jury. We affirm a directed verdict where reasonable jurors could not reach different conclusions. [13] The Jones Act remedy is available only against the seaman's employer. [14] The Jones Act provides that [a]ny seaman who shall suffer personal injury in the course of his employment may, at his election, maintain an action for damages at law. [15] Thus, it must be determined whether MSS was Horton's employer. While there is no clear test to resolve this question, there are some guiding principles. The United States Supreme Court has concluded that employment should be construed broadly: [T]he word employment should be construed so as to give protection to seamen for torts committed against them by those standing in the proximate relation of employer, and the rules of private agency should not be rigorously applied. Yet this Court may not disregard the plain and rational meaning of employment and employer to furnish a seaman a cause of action against one completely outside the broadest lines or definitions of employment or employer. [16] With that in mind, the Supreme Court then set forth three questions: Whose orders controlled the master and crew? Whose money paid their wages? Who hired the crew? [17] Thus, the employer is the entity that supervises, manages, directs, and controls the employee. [18] Ordinarily this is a jury question. [19] MSS was owner pro hac vice of the vessels, and Horton was aboard one of the vessels attempting to prevent its seizure when he was injured. There is no indication that Horton was working on his own behalf. The record also reveals that Horton was serving as acting deck hand at the time, according to Captain Adams, and that technically Horton was Adams's subordinate. In general, the captain is in charge of the vessel and operations even when Horton is on board. Adams had been hired by Steve Miller, the port captain for MSS, and only met Horton briefly two days before the accident. In addition, Horton was, broadly speaking, under the control of MSS since it had the authority to discharge him. Gerda Horton testified that she considered Horton to be an employee of the corporation since he did everything that was necessary and served in any capacity in which he was needed. In this context, Horton could have been nothing other than an employee of MSS. Because MSS submitted no evidence that could have allowed reasonable jurors to conclude that Horton was not an employee, we affirm the directed verdict as to Horton's employee status.