Document: 361 U.S. 129 80 S.Ct. 247 4 L.Ed.2d 191 Christian F. BRAEN, Petitioner,v.PFEIFER OIL TRANSPORTATION CO., Inc. No. 32. Argued Nov. 16, 1959. Decided Dec. 14, Mr. Benjamin H. Siff, New York City, for petitioner. Edmund Lamb, respondent. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Petitioner brought this suit under Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 688, U.S.C.A. and recovered judgment after a jury trial. He was employed as mate on respondent's barge. On day prior to injury barge came repair yard have cargo pump fixed. At respondent maintained covered lighter, known Winisook, which used work Its inshore side connected with dock by plank runway. Between Winisook raft chipping, painting, welding such barges might need that service. The petitioner worked not at time being serviced raft. But had been in other times now needed new decking. 2 moored adjoin open water crew using catwalk around sides whenever they left or boarded morning moored, petitioner's supervisor ordered him lay some decking raft, experience carpenter. accordingly prepared go job assignment. As he standing catwalk, preparatory starting his work, releasing line permit maneuver it into place so could board it, gave way, causing injury. Court Appeals reversed 263 F.2d 147. We granted petition certiorari because decision seemed be out authorities. 359 952, 79 740, 3 760. In O'Donnell v. Great Lakes Co., 318 36, 63 488, 87 L.Ed. 596, seaman allowed recover Act even though injured shore. deckhand. ship discharging her through conduit its outer end land pipe means gasket. question master ashore assist repairing While engaged, reason negligence fellow employee. held words 'in course employment' were restricted injuries occurring navigable waters, broadly Congress support 'all constitutional power possessed,' id., page 39, 490, constitutionally permissible supplement remedy maintenance cure extending right recovery trial 'while service vessel negligence.' Id., 43, 492. test, case holds, is whether occurred applied lower court, 38, we reversed. Rather while employment.' 5 party must 'status member vessel' seamen, others who may (Swanson Marra Bros., 328 1, 4, 66 869, 871, 90 1045), whom extended protection Act. Nice questions often arise concerning status particular workmen their duties give them 'seamen' word Desper Starved Rock Ferry 342 187, 72 216, 96 205. And see Gianfala Texas 350 879, 76 141, 100 775, reversing Cir., 222 382; Senko LaCrosse Dredging Corp., 352 370, 77 415, 404; Butler Whiteman, 356 271, 78 734, 754. court below apparently thought moment 'seaman'; conclusion turned view engaged furtherance navigation vessel. indeed, error given instructions effect. 6 done an employee will crucial determining what purposes recovery. South Chicago Coal & Dock Co. Bassett, 309 251, 260, 60 544, 549, 84 732; Swanson supra; Pennsylvania R. O'Rourke, 344 334, 73 302, 97 367; Grimes Raymond Concrete Pile 252, 687, 737; supra. Those cases, however, are relevant our present problem since assignment type bring one otherwise ship's within scope presented case. Here start mate. issue petitioner, therefore 'seaman,' conclude was. 7 fact did occur controlling, supra, 373, 417, holds. A 'seaman' sent off perform employment. Marceau Transit 146 416, cook when, pursuant duty, returning approaching ladder ingress 8 departing from shore leave entitled Aguilar Standard Oil 724, 930, 1107. It there recognized much when boarding first reporting quitting discharged, going leave, high sea. pages 736—737, 936—937. also dance hall Warren United States, 340 523, 529, 71 432, 436, 95 503. These two cases but involved cure. Yet make clear seaman's employment activities related measured standards land-based relationships. They supply guides meaning term 'course equivalent 'service ship' formula cases. See Gilmore Black, Law Admiralty, p. 284. 492; 9 superior carpentry between lighter dock. injured, said, attempting move position boarding. facilitate painting vessels. Cf. Grant Smith-Porter Ship Rohde, 257 469, 42 157, 321. installed presently immaterial. acting injury, doing employer employer's orders. No more required indicates, consequence employer. 10 District reinstated. 11 So ordered. 12 Judgment 13 HARLAN, FRANKFURTER WHITTAKER join, concurring part dissenting part. 14 To assert action plaintiff only seaman, is, 'member any vessel,' 688; 33 903(a)(1), 903(a)(1). concededly events took place. controverted found I cannot agree nature irrelevant latter issue. 15 Until today has intimated know arising unrelated operation vessel, incidental affairs. words, does alone play. character giving rise complained indispensable element existence federal relief statute. case, 42—43, 492, cited Court, stated: 'The such, * depends relationship plying waters.' There momentarily fixture unloading ship. That immaterial liability. plainly aid operations employed. 1045.1 far different matter say, seems say here, directly affairs O'Donnell, shipboard Thompson Eargle, 182 717; 416. 'In something quite than shipowner.'2 nonseaman-employing business, yard, non-seaman needed. 16 maritime workers provided interstate railroad Federal Employers' Liability 45 51, 51. Under FELA, uniform decisions see, e.g., Southern Pacific Gileo, 351 493, 1357; Reed 502, 958, 1366, applies 'to person suffering (interstate) carrier commerce.' '(a)ny shall suffer personal think arisen just worker's commerce. Otherwise difficult purpose requirement serves. Both FELA cause respect kinds injuries—under those suffered commerce, seaman. 17 Thus, liability turns fell faulty already performance assignment, simply en route If former, would, my opinion, no liability, record contains basis inference business and, lacking relationship, deemed event would afforded local law. 7, 872; Larson, Workmen's Compensation, 90.22.3 If, apply, 'the employment,' think, continued until commenced Considering evidence presents score, concur reversal dismissing complaint. 18 However, dissent reinstatement portion charge, excepted, vague guidance factual respect.4 Moreover, making turn members normally performed nature, charge error.5 Such factor well where doubt ultimate work6 way served. here disputed wholly referring stated (328 870): 'We shipowner liable, caused servant former cargo. sustained such.' (Emphasis supplied.) relied all, like instances incurred during leave-time activities, inapposite here. Whether, facts before us, working doctrine cure, decide, advances assimilating coverage availability mistaken considering Longshoremen's Harbor Workers' Compensation §§ 902(3), 903(a)(1) excludes admittedly pertinent part, read follows: 'While outset crew, seem seriously accident crew. 'Whether functions stated, detail, various date accident, you determine.' Subsequently amended language: 'I state Apparently according defendant's statement, says serious 'So issue.' courts failed come sharply grips distinction separate requirements namely, such. Most decided See, remotely apposite disputed. confuses things equate Shore Marceau, problem.

Category: 7