Opinion ID: 791344
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Vessel in navigation

Text: 23 In Stewart, the Supreme Court considered whether a dredge is a `vessel' under the [LHWCA], and concluded that it is. 125 S.Ct. at 1121. To qualify as a vessel, a ship must be `used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water.' Id. at 1124 (quoting Rev. Stat. § 3, codified at 1 U.S.C. § 3). While structures may lose their character as vessels if they have been withdrawn from the water for extended periods of time, id. at 1128, permanently moored[,] or otherwise rendered practically incapable of transportation or movement, id. at 1127, a ship does not move in and out of vessel status because it is temporarily at anchor, docked . . . or berthed for minor repairs, id. Likewise, a watercraft [does not] pass in and out of Jones Act coverage depending on whether it was moving at the time of the accident. Id. at 1128. Provided that at the time of the accident a watercraft's use as a means of transportation remains a practical possibility, rather than merely a theoretical one, it qualifies as a vessel in navigation for the purposes of LHWCA coverage. Id. 24 Applying these tests to the dredge at issue in Stewart, the Supreme Court emphasized that the dredge was not only `capable of being used' to transport equipment and workers over water — it was used to transport those things. Indeed, it could not have dug the Ted Williams Tunnel had it been unable to traverse the Boston Harbor, carrying with it workers like Stewart. Id. at 1128. The Court added that [d]espite the seeming incongruity of grouping dredges alongside more traditional seafaring vessels under the [LHWCA and Jones Act], Congress and the courts have long done precisely that. Id. at 1129. 25 In all material respects, the bucket dredge in the instant case is indistinguishable from the dredge at issue in Stewart: both have a clamshell bucket . . . suspended beneath the water, and both move long distances by tugboat and navigate short distances by manipulating . . . anchors and cables. Id. at 1121. In addition to sharing these physical features, the dredge on which the decedent worked was actively used to deepen navigation channels in the vicinity of Staten Island and could not have performed this task without the ability to transport equipment and workers across navigable waters. 26 The Supreme Court's decision in Stewart supersedes the three-part test we developed in Tonnesen v. Yonkers Contracting Co., 82 F.3d 30 (2d Cir.1996), which stated that a floating structure would not qualify as a vessel in navigation if, inter alia, the transportation function performed by the [purported vessel] was merely incidental to its primary purpose of serving as a work platform. Id. at 36. On the basis of Stewart, we conclude that the test announced in Tonnesen no longer applies and that the bucket dredge on which the decedent worked is properly classified as a vessel for purposes of the LHWCA.