Cruise Ship Law

ADDIE HOLMES, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus ATLANTIC SOUNDING COMPANY INC; WEEKS MARINE INC; ABC INSURANCE CO; XYZ INSURANCE CO, Defendants-Appellees; ADDIE HOLMES, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus ATLANTIC SOUNDING COMPANY INC; ABC INSURANCE CO INC, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 04-30732, Cons. No. 04-30750
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
437 F.3d 441; 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 1175; 2005 AMC 2612
January 19, 2006, Filed

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff injured employee appealed decisions of the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, which (1) denied her motion to remand her Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.S. app. § 688, and general maritime law personal injury suit against defendants, her nominal employer and the company for which she was actually performing services at the time of the injury, and (2) dismissed the suit.

OVERVIEW: The employee sued defendants in state court seeking damages for injuries that she allegedly sustained on her first day of work as a cook aboard the BT-213. The BT-213 was a floating dormitory, a barge on the deck of which a two-story, 50-bed quarters package was mounted. The BT-213 was incapable of self-propulsion and was towed by tugs from place to place to house and feed employees during dredging projects at various locations. It was not intended to transport personnel, equipment, passengers, or cargo, and no evidence in the record reflected that it had ever done so. It did have a raked bow on each end and two end tanks where the rakes were for flotation. The district court held that the BT-213 was not a vessel for purposes of the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.S. app. § 688. In reversing the district court's decisions, the court held that a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision had broadened the definition of vessel. The court held that the BT-213 was a vessel for Jones Act purposes because it was practically capable of maritime transportation.

OUTCOME: The court reversed and remanded the district court's decisions.