Document: 520 U.S. 548117 S.Ct. 1535137 L.Ed.2d 800 HARBOR TUG AND BARGE COMPANY, Petitioner,v.John PAPAI et ux. No. 95-1621. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Jan. 13, 1997. Decided May 12, Syllabus * Respondent Papai was injured while painting housing structure tug Pt. Barrow. Petitioner Harbor Tug & Barge Co., tug's operator, had hired him to do work, which expected last one day and would not involve sailing with vessel. been employed by on 12 previous occasions in 2 1/2 months before his injury, receiving those jobs through Inland Boatman's Union (IBU) hiring hall. He getting short-term various vessels hall for about 1/4 years. Most were deckhand said involved manning lines on- off-board they dock or undock. sued Tug, claiming, inter alia, negligence under Jones Act, wife joined as a plaintiff, claiming loss consortium. The District granted summary judgment upon finding that did enjoy seaman status it later confirmed adjudication. Ninth Circuit reversed remanded trial of, among other things, Papai's corresponding Act claim. Based Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, 515 347, 115 2172, 132 314, court described relevant inquiry whether permanent connection vessel but relationship an identifiable group substantial duration nature, found this required consideration employment's total circumstances. determined reasonable jury could conclude satisfied test, if type work maritime worker customarily performs entitle performed single employer, he should be deprived simply because industry operates daily assignment, rather than employment, system. Held: 1.Because issue record permits is here resolved employer's favor, does reach question administrative ruling employee claim Longshore Workers' Compensation coverage bars suit. P. 1. 2.This permit seaman. confined seamen, workers who face regular exposure perils sea. An important part test determining has fleet vessels, latter concept requires requisite degree common ownership control. U.S., at ----, S.Ct., 2188. link established mere use same draws from pool employees. worked IBU years injury linked any Considering prior employments independent employers making undermine "the interests alike being able predict will covered . particular begins,'' id., 2187, there no principled basis limiting are considered status. That Deckhands Agreement classified give Seaman based actual duties, South Chicago Coal Dock Co. Bassett, 309 251, 260, 60 544, 549, 84 L.Ed. 732, duties during employment included seagoing activity. Nor infer testimony nature qualify Pp. ____-____. 67 F.3d 203 (CA 9 1995), reversed. KENNEDY, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C.J., O'CONNOR, SCALIA, SOUTER, THOMAS, JJ., joined. STEVENS, filed dissenting opinion, GINSBURG BREYER, Eric Danoff, San Francisco, CA, petitioner. Thomas J. Boyle, respondents. David C. Frederick, amicus curiae, special leave Court. Justice KENNEDY 1 Adjudication determine 46 U.S.C.App. §688(a), (LHWCA), 44 Stat. (part 2) 1424, amended, 33 U.S.C. §901 seq., continues concern our distinction between two mutually exclusive categories can difficult implement, many cases turn their specific facts. Appeals held case Granting petition writ certiorari, we brought questions us. first favor LHWCA suit wishes pursue district court. second We resolve and, dispositive case, first. 3 On status, significance beyond facts case. Our statement earlier may establish substantiality "an vessels'' navigation, see 368, 2179, 314 (1995), subject differing interpretations, seek provide clarification. 4 John Barrow when ladder moved, alleges, causing fall injure knee. App. 50. work. Id., 44. A prime coat paint applied task apply finish coat. 45. There captain board reported port captain, dockside office. 36-37. begin end day, 35, 48, going sail after finished painting, 51. injury. 5 received All short term. longest lasted 40 days most three under. 29, 34. In deposition, coming headings: maintenance, longshoring, deckhand. 30-32. maintenance chipping rust aboard docked vessels. 30, 34-35. Longshoring helping discharge 31. Deckhand undocked. 30. As assignments obtained over years, them, says Papai, 6 After alleged Barrow, Northern California, unseaworthiness general law, addition causes action. His sought claims, contending so prevail either Tug's motion denied reconsideration. decisions McDermott International, Wilander, 498 337, 111 807, 112 866 (1991), Southwest Marine, Gizoni, 502 81, 486, 116 405 "to confirm'' adjudication non-seaman reasoned, since superseded, supra, within meaning "he have "more less connection' nor perform sufficient status.'' Pet. Cert. 27a. 7 claims. decision "not plaintiff [but] plaintiff's (or vessels) terms circumstances employment.'' 203, 206 (1995). majority panel believed test. majority's view, " [i]f assignment system.'' Ibid. also "circumstance'' "may itself connection'' 8 Judge Poole dissented holding triable recognized Chandris out possibility without provided nevertheless ""an such vessels.''' F.3d, 209 (quoting 2179). said, however, mistake view that, seaman-status purposes, "group identified sailor sails, just employer controlling entity Th[e holding] renders "identifiable group' "fleet' requirement nullity.'' (citation omitted). noted position conflicted Fifth (en banc) Third panel. (citing Barrett Chevron, U. S. A., Inc., 781 F.2d 1067 (C.A.5 1986) banc); Reeves Mobile Dredging Pumping 26 1247 (C.A.3 1994)); Johnson Continental Grain 58 1232 (C.A.8 1995); Fisher Nichols, 81 319, 323 (C.A.2 1996) (rejecting control requirement). 519 117 36, 135 1127 (1996), now reverse. II 10 LHWCA, workers' compensation scheme, excludes its "a master member crew vessel,'' §902(3)(G). These masters crewmembers seamen entitled sue damages Act. 355-358, 2183. words, "mutually exclusive.'' 11 recent explain proper need restate doctrinal development, 355-368, 2183-2190; 341-54, 810-817, It suffices cite held, pertinent part: [T]he essential requirements twofold. First employee's must contribute function accomplishment mission 13 "Second, purposes here, navigation both nature. 2179 (citations internal quotation marks 14 mixed law fact, often inappropriate take jury. Nevertheless, "summary directed verdict mandated where reasonably support only conclusion.'' 356, 818; 368-369, 2179-2180. 15 dispute hall) contributed mission, satisfying Chandris' standard. navigation. result, turns standard show nature.'' 2179. explained rule follows: 16 "The fundamental purpose th[e] full effect remedial scheme created Congress separate sea-based employees protection land-based transitory sporadic therefore whose regularly expose them sea.'' 17 For serve purpose, into concentrate This substance helpful distinguishing 18 argues, meets owned, appears, different control, 38. longshoring hall, 31, appears still employers, above, testified deposition period According satisfies constitutes "substantial connection.'' 19 hold one. Braniff Jackson Ave.-Gretna Ferry, 280 523 1960), job ferry boats, boats running: usual thing, course, person relation But nothing limit mechanically ship.'' 528. "no insurmountable difficulty,'' explained, "several vessels''-an fleet''-as opposed 20 We, turn, adverted Chandris. "allow[ing] fleet' finite control.'' 366, 2189. discuss description requiring Courts applying concept, see, e.g., 1258. pointed Chandris: [W]e reason exclusively examination overall course worker's service employer.'' 371-372, 2191. interpreted mean "it necessary examine time period.'' 206. define what meant event, context makes clear meaning, history affect new "essential duties'' ones. 371, words "particular employer'' emphasis point narrower, broader, entire current employer. suggestion employers. See 367, 2189 ("Since [v. U.S.A., banc)], consistently analyzed problem [of status] percentage question''). outside limited discussion used gave phrase opposite requires. 21 stressed "join[ed] together obtain labor draw means union hall.'' 206; 206, n. (suggesting involves [that] collectively agreed employees'' hall). evidence contract employing deckhands (IBU Agreement) negotiated multiemployer bargaining group, even been, result here. showing identify unitary aspect business operation. So far shows, each free hire, assign, direct whatever tasks determined, limited, most, Agreement. deciding relevance determination, 22 (and, perhaps more importantly employers' obligations, LHWCA) begins.'' 363, 2187. spoke "relevant period'' but, Since often, determinative element inquiry, given workable practical confines. When further purpose. 23 contends some consistent classification "qualified deckhand'' By Agreement, qualified "satisfactory helmsman lookout,'' example, underway, "conduct[ing] check engine room minimum (2) times watch safety reasons.'' 77. 732 (1940), rejected grounded title, happened "deckhand.'' question,'' "concerns duties.'' 549. Northeast Marine Terminal Caputo, 432 249, 268, 97 2348, 2359, 53 320 (1977) (reasoning membership longshoremen's was, itself, irrelevant fact unrelated LHWCA's provisions). operations, agreement says. non-seagoing above. duty throughout include activity; it. 44, question, however brief, consider consequences employment. gives assume subjecting these circumstances, advance accuracy inquiry. 24 argues qualifies four injured, week earlier. Each engagements docked. virtue injured. specificity eight nine company &1/2 closest comes 70 percent Coupled none discrete sort "transitory sporadic'' 25 seeking sea- inconsistent coverage. adhere him. concept. burden "set forth genuine trial.'' Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 56(e). failed meet erred otherwise. Its ordered. 27 whom BREYER join, dissenting. 28 During year immediately respondent man deckhand, "most [was] done moving water.'' If all petitioner, doubt 29 Petitioner, maintain 204 (C.A.9 1995). Instead, like tugboat operators Francisco Bay area, job-by-job Under I believe correctly concluded tested character owners agent make selections 30 "voyage test'' concluding performing high seas necessarily 358-364, 2184-2188. instead adopted status-based looked vessel-or vessels-in 370-371, 2191-2192. Today, apparently concludes protected preceding primarily seaman's conclusion unsupported reasoning language opinion. 31 vessel, 376, 2193. Nothing Court's intimated owned person.1 Particularly market designed allow rely temporary range jobs, observed 32 unfairness evident. Let us area crews random Further, thus remainder shore-based typical working seaman, aware reality environment. reasoning, randomly selected 2-year assignments, receive few owner boat tries justify argument acknowledging number hire create uncertainties Ante, __-__. might realize chip spent past neighboring fear exaggerated, hires presumed familiar Moreover, surely outweighs concern. 34 Of order liable, existed teaches us, activity Rather, looking history. obtains seems me operator occurred. 35 Accordingly, affirm Appeals.2 syllabus prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Timber Lumber 200 321, 282, 287, 50 499 (1906). puts great weight Circuit's developing doctrine "modif[ying] ante, __. lower court's form holding, outcome reach, think (1991). G. Gilmore Black, Law Admiralty 435 (2d ed. 1975).

Category: 7