Floating Fish Processing Factory which traveled between Seattle and Alaska twice each year is held to be a vessel in navigation for purpose of determining whether injured Fish Processing Factory worker was a Jones Act Seaman...
Floating Fish Processing Factory which traveled between Seattle and Alaska twice each year is held to be a vessel in navigation for purpose of determining whether injured Fish Processing Factory worker was a Jones Act Seaman despite it being moored at the time of, and for several months prior to, the injury.
ARTHUR MARTINEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SIGNATURE SEA FOODS INC; LUCKY BUCK F/V, Official # 567411, her machinery, appurtenances, equipment and cargo, in rem, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-35768
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
303 F.3d 1132; 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 18648; 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Service 9360; 2002 Daily Journal DAR 10500
July 8, 2002, Submitted
September 11, 2002, Filed
PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. D.C. No. CV-00-01293-MJP. Marsha J. Pechman, District Judge, Presiding. Martinez v. Signature Seafoods, Inc., 170 F. Supp. 2d 1070, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17889 (W.D. Wash. 2001).
DISPOSITION: Reversed and remanded.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: In the course of his employment on a fish processing barge, plaintiff employee developed carpal tunnel syndrome. The employee filed a personal injury action, raising claims under the Jones Act and the federal maritime doctrine of unseaworthiness. Defendants moved for summary judgment. The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted the motion, finding that the employee lacked seaman status. The employee appealed.
OVERVIEW: While also a fish processing factory, the vessel at issue was actually seaworthy. Specifically, the vessel was not permanently moored, and it had the ability to navigate the seas. The vessel had a transportation function, as it carried the fish processing plant, crew quarters, and incidental supplies between Seattle and Alaska twice each year. Even if the transportation function of the vessel was incidental to its primary purpose of serving as a floating fish processing factory, that fact did not preclude a finding that it was a vessel in navigation. Further, there was evidence that the barge was designed as a fish processing vessel which operated in and processes fish on the coasts of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and/or California. The fact that it was designed to be transported among various fish processing sites raised a substantial factual issue about its status.
OUTCOME: The judgment of the district court was reversed and the action was remanded for further proceedings.
