Employer's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jones Act Seaman Status Denied...
Employer's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jones Act Seaman Status Denied Where Factual Issues Existed As To Whether The Vessel Was Out Of Navigation At The Time The Employee Sustained His Injuries and Whether The Employee Was Acting In The Scope of His Employment At The Time of His Injury.
RICHARD CARTER VERSUS BISSO MARINE CO., INC.
NO. 01-2448 SECTION "K" MAGISTRATE "4"
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20127
October 17, 2002, Decided
October 17, 2002, Filed, Entered
DISPOSITION: Defendant Bisso Marine Company, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's Alleged Seaman Status denied. Defendant Bisso Marine Company, Inc.'s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's Claim for Unseaworthiness denied. Defendant Bisso Marine Company, Inc.'s Motion as to Plaintiff's Accident of December 2000 denied, and Defendant Bisso Marine Company, Inc.'s Motion For Partial Summary Judgment on Grounds of Statute of Limitations granted.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant ship owner filed motions for summary judgment and motions for partial summary judgment in plaintiff employee's admiralty action to recover damages under the Jones Act and general maritime law for his back injuries.
OVERVIEW: The ship owner claimed that the employee was not a seaman under the Jones Act, that the vessel worked on by the employee was not in navigation at the time of the employee's injuries, that the employee was not acting in the course of his employment at the time of his latest injury, and that the employee's earlier injury claims were time-barred. The court initially held that there were disputed factual issues regarding whether the employee fell short of the thirty percent temporal threshold for seaman status. The court the held that, due to the incomplete and contradictory evidence, it could not say as a matter of law that the vessel was out of navigation when the employee sustained his injuries. The court further held that there were issues of material fact as to whether the employee was acting in the scope of his employment at the time of his latest injury. The court finally held that the employee's earlier injury claims were time-barred under 46 U.S.C.S. Appx. § 183(g) and La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 9:5628(A).
OUTCOME: Partial summary judgment was granted for the ship owner regarding the employee's earlier injury claims. The remaining motions were denied.
