Court Opinion

ID: 9543127
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:42:22.75232+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:09:45.114176
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE EARNS, dissenting: I find it difficult to equate the duties of plaintiff, a member of the Operating Engineers Union, with those of a ship’s captain. The work barge had no motive power and obviously could only be moved downstream by flotation when the mooring spuds were removed. Assuming the barge to be a vessel m navigation, a matter not free from doubt, I do not consider plaintiff to be a seaman. We recently reviewed the cases dealing with seaman status in Dungey v. United States Steel Corp. (1986), 148 Ill. App. 3d 484, 499 N.E.2d 545. There, the plaintiff, a member of the Operating Engineers Union, worked as an oiler on a construction crane affixed to a work barge in the Mississippi River. The barge had no motive power but was occasionally moved a few feet downstream by manipulating mooring spuds. We adopted the test of Johnson v. John F. Beasley Construction Co. (7th Cir. 1984), 742 F.2d 1054. A seaman is one who is a master or member of the crew of a vessel in navigation whose duties make a significant contribution to the transportation function of the vessel. I would conclude that our disposition in Dungey would dispose of plaintiff’s status in the instant case.