Construction Worker Injured While On A Barge In A Flood Control Channel Who Had Responsibilities Involved With Movement Of The Barge Two To Three Times Per Week For Three Months May Present Issue At Trial As To Whether He Is A Jones Act Seaman.
RUPERT GAULT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MODERN CONTINENTAL/ ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. JOINT VENTURE, Defendant and Respondent.
B152722
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR
2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 4464
July 10, 2002, Filed
PRIOR HISTORY: APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Super. Ct. No. TC013629. Rose Hom, Judge.
DISPOSITION: Reversed and remanded.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: In a suit brought by plaintiff employee under the Jones Act, specifically 46 U.S.C.S. § 688; the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C.S. § 901 et seq.; and general maritime law, the Los Angeles County Superior Court, California, granted defendant employer's motion for summary judgment, finding as a matter of law that the employee was not a "seaman" on a "vessel in navigation" in "navigable waters." The employee appealed.
OVERVIEW: The employee, who was employed as a construction worker in a project to build a bridge over a flood control channel, was injured when, as the barge he was working on was being separated into sections, a heavy load on the section on which the employee was standing shifted and the section flipped over, throwing him into the water and causing him to lose a finger. The employer argued that the employee was not a seaman, the barge was neither a vessel nor in navigation, the flood control channel was not a navigable waterway, and the employee was not a maritime worker. The instant court concluded that there was a triable issue of material fact as to the employee's entitlement to a Jones Act remedy. The fact that the barge was in transit raised a material issue of fact regarding whether it was a "vessel in navigation." There was also a triable issue whether the channel was a navigable waterway. The uncontradicted evidence that the employee had responsibilities involved with movement of the vessel, and that those responsibilities were exercised two to three times per week for three months, weighed in favor of finding his connection to the barge to be substantial in nature.
OUTCOME: The judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. The employee was awarded costs on appeal.
