Cruise Ship Law

In Re: In the Matter of the Complaint of Endeavor Marine,Inc. and Tako Towing, Inc., as Owner and/or owner pro hac vice of the vessel M/VTako Endeavor, her engines, tackle, appurtenances, etc., praying for Exonerationfrom or Limitation of Liability: ENDEAVOR MARINE, INC.; TAKO TOWING, INC., asowner and/or owner pro hac vice of the vessel M/V Tako Endeavor her engines,tackle, appurtenances, etc., praying for exoneration from or limitation ofliability, Petitioners-Appellants, versus CRANE OPERATORS, INC.; ET AL.,Claimants, CRANE OPERATORS, INC., Claimant-Appellee, versus KEVIN M. BAYE, SR.,Claimant-Appellant.

No. 99-30197
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 31624
December 11, 2000, Decided

OVERVIEW: In an action under the Limitation of Liability Act brought by petitioner vessel owners, claimant employee sought recovery under the Jones Act, from petitioners and claimant employer, for injuries suffered while employed as a crane operator on one petitioner's barge. Claimant employer asserted that there was no liability under the Jones Act because claimant employee was not a seaman. The court held that claimant employee was a seaman under the Jones Act since he contributed to the function of the vessel and had a substantial employment connection to the vessel in terms of both duration and nature. Even though claimant employee's connection with the vessel did not take him to sea, where claimant employee boarded the barge only after the vessel was moored or in the process of mooring, the sole purpose of the barge was to load and unload cargo vessels, and claimant was regularly exposed to the perils of the sea in the course of his employment.
OUTCOME: Judgment was reversed; since claimant employee's duties as a crane operator aboard a barge regularly exposed claimant employee to the perils of the sea, claimant employee was a seaman and liability under the maritime statute was thus applicable to claimant employer.