Court Opinion

ID: 9744090
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:53:06.036659+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:46.564384
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE WELCH, dissenting: I approve of the reasoning of the majority with the single exception that I do not find Johnson v. John F. Beasley Construction Co. (7th Cir. 1984), 742 F.2d 1054, requires the conclusion plaintiff was not a “seaman.” In Johnson, the plaintiff’s employer was building the new lift section and control house of a railroad bridge over the Illinois River. The plaintiff was the foreman of the crew constructing the lift section and control house over water from a barge. The barge had no motive power of its own and no steering, and was pushed to its position by a tugboat. Plaintiff and his crew assisted with holding and preparing lines to shore. In Johnson, the plaintiff was hardly more than a passenger on the barge. He did almost nothing for the barge itself. His crew used it as a platform from which to construct a bridge. In the case at bar, plaintiff’s duties concerned the operation of the crane which was affixed to and part of the vessel on which he was stationed. He was on the vessel not because it was a convenient place to stand, but because the functions of the vessel required that someone of his qualifications be there to ensure that the vessel continued to serve its functions. I believe that this plaintiff does come within the “transportation function” test in Johnson. The instant vessel was two barges welded together with a mounted crane. The plaintiff’s job was repair, reassembly and maintenance of the crane portion of the vessel. If plaintiff’s work were not done, there would be no reason for the vessel to go anywhere as the unit would be inoperative and of no use. Plaintiff’s duties made him an essential member of the crew of the vessel, and he was entitled to the same protection as any seaman. I conclude plaintiff in the case at bar “made a significant contribution to the maintenance, operation, or welfare of the transportation function of the vessel” (Johnson v. John F. Beasley Construction Co. (7th Cir. 1984), 742 F.2d 1054, 1063), and I therefore dissent.