MARINE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY WAS PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN AN ACTION FOR INJURIES UNDER JONES ACT AND LHWCA BECAUSE CLAIMANT WAS NOT A JONES ACT SEAMAN AND WAS INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR FOR "ONE-SHOT" JOB AT TIME OF INJURY. COMPANY WAS NOT LIABLE
ARTHUR J PRESTENBACH, Plaintiff-Appellant v. GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL MARINE INC, Defendant-Appellee
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 16649
July 12, 2007, Filed
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff claimant appealed a decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, which granted summary judgment to defendant, a marine transportation company, in the claimant's action seeking compensation for injuries under the Jones Act for negligence and vessel owner negligence and for employee benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA), 33 U.S.C.S. § 901 et seq.
OVERVIEW: The claimant was hired as a contractor to raise a sunken barge for the company as a "one-shot" job. The claimant alleged that the company's failure to provide him with a fully English-speaking crew was negligence and caused his injury pursuant to 33 U.S.C.S. § 905(b). On review, the court upheld the grant of summary judgment because the claimant was clearly not a Jones Act seaman at the time of his injury and he was not an employee entitled to compensation benefits under the LHWCA. The court agreed that the claimant was an independent contractor and not an employee under the LHWCA in that he billed the company for his work using an invoice and classified himself as a consultant, crane operator, and welder. Further, the barge-raising project was not part of the regular work of the company. The company was also not liable for vessel negligence under § 905(b) because of an allegedly inadequate crew. The company did not breach any of its duties owed to the claimant as an independent contractor in that there were no unseaworthy or negligent conditions on the barge, the tug, the pump, or the sunken barge that contributed to or caused the claimant's injury.
OUTCOME: The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment.
