Court Opinion

ID: 9484253
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 09:45:45.195982+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:50:07.171280
License: Public Domain

ANDERSON, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
O’Boyle contends that he was a seaman because his presence on the HAURYO-MARU-53 was essential to the accomplishment of its mission, in the sense that the vessel could not legally perform its function without carrying him aboard. Although I find some merit in O’Boyle’s argument, and although it cannot be said that O’Boyle’s position is clearly incorrect in light of the paucity of relevant authority, I conclude that Judge Dyer’s reasoning is more persuasive. Aside from the fact that his presence on the vessel was legally required, O’Boyle did not contribute to the vessel’s function in any way. Accordingly, I concur.