Document: 352 U.S. 370 77 S.Ct. 415 1 L.Ed.2d 404 Jacob SENKO, Petitioner,v.LA CROSSE DREDGING CORPORATION. No. 62. Argued Dec. 12, 1956. Decided Feb. 25, 1957. Rehearing Denied April 8, See 353 931, 716. Mr. George J. Moran, Granite City, Ill., for the petitioner. Stuart B. Bradley, Chicago, respondent. Justice REED delivered opinion of Court. Petitioner was employed by respondent to assist with dredging operations being conducted in a slough dug by-pass rocky section Mississippi River. His work that handyman; it included carrying and storing supplies, general maintenance dredge. He injured explosion coal stove while placing signal lanterns from dredge shed on neighboring bank. filed this suit under Jones Act City Court Illinois, recover damages his injuries. The provides cause action 'any seaman who shall suffer personal injury course employment.' 41 Stat. 1007, 46 U.S.C. § 688, U.S.C.A. 688. This Court, however, has held Longshoremen's Harbor Workers' Compensation March 4, 1927, 44 1424, 33 901 et seq., restricts benefits 'members crew vessel.' Swanson v. Marra Bros., Inc., 328 1, 66 869, 872, 90 L.Ed. 1045. To recover, therefore, petitioner had be member crew, as term is used Act, at time injury. 2 jury returned verdict judgment entered favor. On appeal Fourth District Appellate State Illinois there insufficient evidence support finding crew.1 Accordingly. reversed trial court Senko LaCrosse Dredging Corp., 7 Ill.App.2d 307, 129 N.E.2d 454. Supreme denied petition an appeal. We granted certiorari. 351 949, 76 848, 100 1473. 3 In South Chicago Coal & Dock Co. Bassett, 309 251, 60 544, 84 732, we said whether or not employee "a crew' turns questions fact' that, if question it, conclusive. Id., pages 257—258, 547 548.2 sole presented here, evidentiary basis jury's made specific instructions objected here. 4 appellate characterized 5 'an whose principal duty load supplies vessel anchor, perform incidental tasks common labor character * *.' page 313, 457. 6 They also noted lived ashore aboard except when anchored. concluded 'naturally primarily board aid navigation' could 'maintain Act.' 313—314, It true anchored shore petitioner's during all worked dredge, like most dredges, frequently transit. believe, sufficient record decide permanently attached its crew. 8 Petitioner's witnesses testified he known 'deckhand' among rivermen. hired clean take care deck, splice rope, stow and, general, keep 'in shape.' testimony indicated substantially duties were performed A normal inference responsible seaworthiness. If leaked, example, suppose job would repair leak. Furthermore, witness usual one holding soundings navigation lights 310, 455—456. Here again, reasonably have believed these responsibilities event moved. Whether dredge's taking trip certainly question. travel, necessarily lack status anchorage. Even transoceanic liner may confined berth lengthy periods, ship kept 'crew.' There can no doubt covered period, even though never transit employment. short, man vessel's travel are relevant determining 'member Thus, fact connected cannot controlling. 9 occurred land material. Admiralty jurisdiction coverage depends only vessel, engaged employment' 870, citing O'Donnell Great Lakes Dredge Co., 318 36, 63 488, 87 596.3 10 As before, does normally sit re-examine type below. our decision supra, been fully understood. Our determination person left finder meant juries same discretion they negligence any other fact. essence final reasonable basis, agrees estimate. 11 Because introduced tending show almost solely maintain anchorage future trips, significant navigational function put transit, hold Cf. Gianfala Texas 350 879, 141, 775, reversing Cir., 222 F.2d 382. Accordingly, reverse 12 Respondent, court's judgment, raised two which did reach because disposition case.4 So issues reviewed, remand case court. so ordered. 13 Reversed remanded. 14 HARLAN, whom FRANKFURTER BURTON join, dissenting. 15 my below properly dismissed complaint shows affirmatively 'crew vessel,'1 heretofore courts, indeed according commonly understood meaning expression. Since passage 1927,2 such membership prerequisite right sue Act.3 16 According past decisions, individual must some connection, more less permanent, ship's company.4 More particularly, navigation,' distinguished those 'serving vessels, sure, but (whose) service laborers, sort longshoremen harbor workers.' Congress intended remove converage 'all various sorts workers performing 260, 257, 549, 548. 17 relationship met none requirements. simply ordinary laborer, Common Laborers' Union. Temporarily unemployed, applied union, sent him laborer. Respondent contractor canal-digging project, construction gang supervision foreman. foreman assigned 'laborer' respondent's James Wilkinson, craft which, afloat, served stationary earth-removing machine. miscellaneous, consisting serving assistant handy-man team men operating pumps. carried back, cleaned up filled water cooler, errands shore. eight-hour shift, paid hour, received premium pay overtime. home, drove every day, brought own meals. belong National Maritime Union seamen's organization. subject discipline officers charge At shifted replaced laborers; words, connection gang. navigation; pushed location another, saw 18 nothing indicate seaworthiness ever qualified type. True, lights, 'navigation' carry latter tow. effect placed them continued night. Again, took 'soundings,' spite maritime flavor phrase, facts permit salty inference, since taken (the completely times), measure amount silt pumped canal. All means occasionally measured work-progress earth-removal task about nautical measuring depth natural swimming pool marshy ground. 19 I do think crew,' company primarily' navigation. nexus signed papers join employment governed 'articles'; merely 'pusher' particular project. boss officer superintendent office land. bare things sense demands 'ship's company.' captain, master, mate, discipline, log, galley, watches stand. And say Senko's naturally done, seems me, cost removing words semblance content. Not navigation, 'aid' helping condition navigate.5 machine happened afloat always absence, place place. 20 found 'a relieve us responsibility seeing what jurisdictional requirement obeyed. than once reviewed similar determinations fact-finding bodies, set aside satisfied meet requirements Act. Cantey McLain Line, 312 667, 61 829, 85 1111; Norton Warner 321 565, 64 747, 88 430; Desper Starved Rock Ferry 342 187, 72 216, 96 205. reason is, course, case, 'where provided basic rights (conferred Act) withheld class classes employees judicial review respect command exemption (arising narrowed administrative otherwise.' 571, 751.6 see why sound reasoning should apply reverse, where certain class, 'construction' body. Nor, submit, make difference body jury.7 casts spell lead rob restriction meaningful significance. This, opinion, today's permits.8 21 affirm leave without remedy. already secured workmen's compensation Workmen's S.H.A. ch. 48, 138.1 seq. relief have, add another remedy Congress. Although grounds advanced appeal, considered. n. infra. No involved here 'vessel' Bassett commissioner, applies equal force jury. 'The admiralty United States extend include cases damage injury, property, caused navigable water, notwithstanding done consummated land.' 62 496, 740, 740. '2, waters; 3, part doctrine res ipsa loquitur.' Ill.App.2d, 309, 455. assumed regarded 'vessel.' And, swampy deemed 'navigable water,' additional factor conditioning applicability Goltra, 293 155, 55 46, 79 254; L. 732; 205; Bound Brook, D.C., 146 F. 160, 164; Buena Ventura, 243 797; Seneca Washed Gravel Corp. McManigal, 65 779; De Wald Baltimore Ohio R. 71 810; Diomede Lowe, 296; Moore Dry Pillsbury, 245; Wilkes River Sand 202 383, 388. not, contend cooks members their actual jobs making move. vital distinction contribute functioning vessel—as transport water. Senko, absolutely aspects vessel. worth noting Norton, Commissioner bargeman barge factors relied conspicuously absent Certainly upon relies, suggest issue accorded special sanctity. That grant de novo within primary Administrator, comparable procedure Moreover, despite gave Administrator 'full power authority hear determine of' claims examine Administrator's plaintiff sustained after concluding supported evidence. Further, Court's citation seem context imply result reflecting independent there, rather passing scope Administrator. so, surely control matter law fortiori, not. abstacle reaching what, view, plainly least played operation moving barge, thus arguably per curiam order Gianfala, certiorari, benefit opposing brief oral argument, scarcely precedent much

Category: 7