VESSELS SECOND VOYAGE THE DAY AFTER PLAINTIFF'S INJURY NEGATED THE SUGGESTION THAT VESSEL WAS STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION SO AS TO PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGEMENT AS TO PLAINTIFF NOT BEING A SEAMAN
JOSEPH A. LEE v. SEAREX MANUFACTURING, LLC
CIVIL ACTION NO. 00-1161 SECTION: "R" (3)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4977
April 12, 2001, Decided
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant moved for summary judgment against plaintiff's suit, which asserted claims arising under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.S. ß 688 and, in the alternative, under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C.S. ß 905 (b).
OVERVIEW:Plaintiff brought amended suit against defendant insurer, asserting claims under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.S. ß 688 and, in the alternative, under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C.S. ß 905(b). Plaintiff alleged that while working aboard the maritime vessel as a general maintenance worker, he sustained severe injuries to his right ankle when he fell while disembarking from a gangway. Defendant moved for summary judgment, claiming that plaintiff was not a Jones Act seaman and that he was precluded by ß 905(b) from filing suit as a longshoreman against his employer. However, defendant's motion for summary judgment was denied because at the time of the accident, the vessel had completed her sea trials. Furthermore, the vessel embarked on her second voyage and first job assignment the day after plaintiff's accident, which unequivocally negated the suggestion that the vessel was still under construction. Moreover, whether plaintiff qualified as an ordinary seaman for the purposes of the temporary certificate of inspection was irrelevant to a determination whether plaintiff was a seaman for the purposes of the Jones Act.
OUTCOME:Defendant's motion for summary judgment was denied.
