Court Opinion

ID: 9651346
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 16:15:44.325262+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:32.343080
License: Public Domain

KERNER, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
The Longshoremen’s Compensation Act excludes from its benefits only those persons who regularly are engaged in seafaring and navigation and not those whose tasks are independent of navigation. Wheeling, etc., v. McManigal, 4 Cir., 41 F.2d 593; De Wald v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 4 Cir., 71 F.2d 810; Diomede v. Lowe, 2 Cir., 87 F.2d 296; Moore Dry Dock Co. v. Pillsbury, 9 Cir., 100 F.2d 245, 246; and South Chicago, etc., Co. v. Bassett, 309 U.S. 251, 60 S.Ct. 544, 84 L.Ed. 732. In the South Chicago, etc., Co. case, supra, 309 U.S. page 260, 60 S.Ct. page 549, 84 L.Ed. 732, it was said: “This Act * * * was to provide compensation for a class of employees at work on a vessel in navigable waters who, although they might be classed as seamen * * * were still regarded as distinct from members of a ‘crew’. They were persons serving on vessels, to be sure, but their service was that of laborers * * * and thus distinguished from those employees on the vessel who are naturally and primarily on board to aid in her navigation.”
The question here is what were Lockas’ actual duties? His sole duties were to prepare meals for the crew. He performed no duties in connection with the navigation of the towboat; consequently, the District Court was right and the judgment of dismissal should be affirmed.