Cruise Ship Law

ROCKY H CAIN, Plaintiff - Appellee v. TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE USA, INC; SEDCO FOREX CORP, Defendants - Third Party Plaintiffs - Appellants v. FONTANA CENTER LLC, Third Party Defendant - Appellee

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 3643
February 21, 2008, Filed

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana denied defendant employer's motion for summary judgment in plaintiff workers's negligence action under the Jones Act, holding that the semi-submersible drilling rig under construction and on which the worker was injured was a vessel because it was capable of transporting workers and equipment over water, and thus, the worker was a "seaman." The employer appealed.



OVERVIEW: The employer argued that under established precedent, the rig was not a vessel in navigation, and therefore the worker was not a Jones Act seaman, because the rig was still under construction at the time of the injury. It further argued that the United States Supreme Court's decision in Stewart did not change prior case law. The appellate court agreed. The rig was still under construction at the time of the injury. Although it was capable of self-propulsion and had run some test pipe, it lacked vital equipment to make it fully operational. An engineer for the employer testified that no contractor would have found the rig fit to drill a deepwater well in the Gulf of Mexico as it was intended to do when complete. An incomplete structure not yet put into navigation as an instrument of commerce was not a vessel. That it was not yet certified as operational and in compliance with all safety requirements cast doubt as to the practicality of its use as a means of transportation. It was not a vessel in navigation and the worker was not a Jones Act seaman; he was not entitled to relief under the Jones Act for his injury.



OUTCOME: The district court's denial of summary judgment on the Jones Act claim was reversed and the case was remanded.