MAINTENANCE WORKER HELD NOT TO BE A JONES ACT SEAMAN BECAUSE HE COULD NOT SHOW THAT HE SPENT AT LEAST 30% OF HIS TIME WORKING ON A VESSEL OR A FLEET OF VESSELS UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL
RUSTY ROBERTS, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus CARDINAL SERVICES, INC.; ET AL.; Defendants.
No. 00-31232
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
266 F.3d 368; 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 21256
October 2, 2001, Decided
PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. 99-CV-430-N. Edith Brown Clement, US District Judge.
DISPOSITION: Affirmed.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiffs, injured employee and wife, sued defendants, employer and oil and gas platform owner, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, raising negligence claims against the employer under the Jones Act of 1920, and negligence, premises liability, and strict liability claims against the owner. The employee and spouse appealed the grants of summary judgment in favor of the employer and owner.
OVERVIEW: While working on the owner's platform as a plugging and abandoning operator, the employee was injured by the accidental firing of a perforation gun attached to a wireline that was being used in connection with plugging a well. The employee claimed he was a seaman under the Jones Act of 1920 (Act) and thus entitled to bring tort claims against his employer. The court of appeals agreed with the district court that the employee was not a seaman under the Act. Under the requirement that a worker spent at least 30 percent of his time on certain vessels, the employee did not have the requisite "substantial connection" to a vessel or an identifiable fleet of vessels under the employer's common ownership or control. Claims under La. Civ. Code Ann. arts. 2315 and 667 for negligence (under vicarious liability) and strict liability against the owner because use of a wireline perforation gun under the circumstances was an "ultrahazardous activity" were not established. Wireline perforation was not congruent with "blasting with explosives" as used in La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 667, and did not satisfy Louisiana's broader jurisprudential test for ultrahazardous activities.
OUTCOME: The judgment was affirmed.
