Opinion ID: 524996
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Vessel status under the Jones Act/General Maritime Law

Text: 7 and Section 5(b). 8 To qualify as a seaman under the Jones Act or General Maritime Law the plaintiff must show that he was permanently assigned to or performed a substantial part of his work aboard a vessel. See Barrett v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., 781 F.2d 1067 (5th Cir.1986) (en banc). Similarly, for purposes of a Sec. 905(b) vessel negligence claim under the LHWCA, a plaintiff must show that he was injured as a result of the negligence of a vessel. See Rosetti v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 821 F.2d 1083 (5th Cir.1987) cert. denied --- U.S. ---- 108 S.Ct. 703, 98 L.Ed.2d 654 (1988). In this case the district court held that the barge on which the plaintiff was injured was, as a matter of law, not a Jones Act vessel, but that the barge was a vessel for Sec. 905(b) purposes. Consequently, the district court granted summary judgment for the defendant on the plaintiff's Jones Act claim but denied summary judgment on the plaintiff's Sec. 905(b) claim. 9 We have consistently held that dry docks and analogous structures whose primary purpose is to provide a work platform, even if the structures are afloat, are not Jones Act vessels as a matter of law. Bernard v. Binnings Construction Co., Inc., 741 F.2d 824, 830 (5th Cir.1984). See, also, Watkins v. Pentzien, Inc., 660 F.2d 604 (5th Cir.1981) and Waguespack v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., 795 F.2d 523 (5th Cir.1986). In Bernard the court noted that: 10 A review of ... [decisions holding that floating work platforms are not vessels] indicates three factors common to them: (1) the structures involved were constructed and used primarily as work platforms; (2) they were moored or otherwise secured at the time of the accident; and (3) although they were capable of movement and were sometimes moved across navigable waters in the course of normal operations, any transportation function they performed was merely incidental to their primary purpose of serving as work platforms. Bernard, 741 F.2d at 831. 11 The barge at issue in this case was used primarily as a work platform. Additionally, it was moored at the time of the accident; and any transportation function it performed was merely incidental to its primary purpose of serving as a work platform. It was not, however, constructed as a work platform. Nonetheless, the district court correctly concluded that the barge was not a vessel for Jones Act purposes. Bernard did not attempt to set forth minimum criteria necessary to place a floating structure outside the scope of the definition of vessel under the Jones Act. Rather, it merely listed criteria common to structures previously found not to be Jones Act vessels. To require that a structure meet each criterion in order to qualify as a non-vessel under the Jones Act would result in the conclusion that two identical structures engaged in identical work, one of which was constructed as a work platform and one constructed as a barge, had different vessel status under the Jones Act. We do not believe that such an absurd result is required by Bernard. We therefore hold that a structure may be a non-vessel for Jones Act purposes even if it fails to meet each criterion noted in Bernard and affirm the district court's conclusion that the barge was not a Jones Act vessel. 12 In assuming that the barge was a vessel under Sec. 905(b), the district court relied on our decision in Burks v. American River Transportation Company, 679 F.2d 69, 75 (5th Cir.1982). In Burks we held that the definition of vessel set forth in Title 1 of the United States Code, Sec. 3, provides the meaning of vessel as the term is used in the LHWCA. This section states: The word 'vessel' includes every description of watercraft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water. 13 Had this holding been our last pronouncement on the definition of the term vessel as used in the LHWCA, the district court's ruling that the barge was a vessel under Sec. 905(b) would have been sustainable. Before trial in this case, however, we handed down our decision in Davis v. Cargill, Inc., 808 F.2d 361, 362 (5th Cir.1986). In Davis we held that for purposes of Sec. 905(b), As a matter of law, a floating dry dock is not a vessel when it is moored and in use as a dry dock. (citations omitted) (emphasis in original) In reaching this conclusion we stated: 14 Although the plaintiff was injured while on a work platform and not a dry dock, the similarities between the two compel our holding that this platform, like a moored dry dock used for that purpose, is not a vessel within the meaning of Sec. 905(b). According to the affidavits submitted to the district court by the defendants, the platform was originally a navigable surplus dry cargo barge. It has since been converted for use as a permanently moored platform from which painting and sandblasting services are provided to barges and is no longer designed or used for navigation. The platform is anchored to the riverbed, and is moved only once or twice a year to compensate for tide changes, and even then, ... cannot be moved without the assistance of motorized vessels. The district court therefore properly granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the ground that the work platform on which the plaintiff was injured was not a 'vessel' within the meaning of Sec. 905(b). Id. at 362. (emphasis added) 15 The similarities between the Davis case and the instant case are many and obvious. The barge in this case, like the platform in Davis, was originally a navigable barge. Both were firmly moored to provide painting services, were not used for navigation, were seldom moved, and when moved required the assistance of a motorized vessel. Therefore, under Davis it is clear that the barge on which the plaintiff was injured was not a vessel within the meaning of Sec. 905(b). 16 Further, before the entry of judgment in this case we had issued our opinion in Richendollar v. Diamond M Drilling Co., 819 F.2d 124, 125 (5th Cir.1987) (en banc), in which we held that in order for a waterborne structure to qualify as a 'vessel' under Sec. 905(b), it must be a vessel for purposes of maritime jurisdiction. As is noted above, the barge in this case is not a vessel under general maritime law. Consequently, under our holding in Rosetti it cannot be a vessel for purposes of Sec. 905(b). The district court, therefore, erred in denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff's Sec. 905(b) claim. 17 Because we find that the district court erred in denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment, we need not consider the plaintiff's contention that the court erred in granting the defendant's Rule 41(b) motion to dismiss. The judgment of the district court is, therefore, 18 AFFIRMED.