WHERE AN EMPLOYEE ALLEGEDLY WAS INJURED WHILE WORKING AS A PILE DRIVER ON A BARGE, A JURY DID NOT ERR IN FINDING THAT HE WAS NOT A JONES ACT SEAMAN, BECAUSE, INTER ALIA, ONLY 16% OF HIS WORK WAS PERFORMED ON "WATER," ALL THE VESSELS ON WHICH HE WORKED WER
OVIE REEVES, JR. VERSUS F. MILLER & SONS, INC.
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, THIRD CIRCUIT
07-201 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/03/07); 2007 La. App. LEXIS 1838
October 3, 2007, Decided
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff employee sued defendant employer, claiming status as a Jones Act seaman under 46 U.S.C.S. § 688(a) and seeking damages allegedly sustained as a result of an accident. In the Fourteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Calcasieu, Louisiana, a jury found that the employee was not a Jones Act seaman. The employee appealed.
OVERVIEW: The employee worked as a pile driver/operator who performed various construction duties. The employee alleged that he injured himself while engaged in the course and scope of his employment when he slipped on the deck of a pile driving barge located at a port. The appellate court determined that the jury was not manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong in finding that the employee did not prove by a preponderance of evidence that he was a seaman under the Jones Act. The jury did not err in finding that the employee was a land-based employee, not a seaman, because (1) the employer presented evidence that 16% of his work was performed on "water" and a barge was on site 28% of the hours he worked, (2) all the vessels on which he worked were dockside, (3) he did not sleep or eat on the vessels, (4) he did not keep watch on the vessels overnight, and (5) his pile driving duties did not take him to sea. Also, the jury did not err in finding there had been no "reassignment" prior to the employee's injury, because while his location may have changed at different jobs, his essential duties never did.
OUTCOME: The appellate court affirmed the judgment and assessed all costs of the appeal to the employee.
Bookmark: 
