Buford v. Cardinal Services12/12/2001
al. If Mr. Buford successfully produces such support, then there is a genuine issue of material fact.
In a Jones Act case, the determination of seaman status is a mixed question of law and fact. Papai, 520 U.S. 548, 117 S.Ct. 1535 (1997); Chandris, 515 U.S. 347, 115 S.Ct. 2172; Roberts, 266 F.3d 373. And if reasonable persons could reach only one conclusion as to a particular factual issue, then such issue is not genuine and may be disposed of summarily. However, if reasonable persons could disagree as to a factual issue's resolution, then such issue is genuine, and trial on the merits is warranted. Sumner v. Sumner, 95-677 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/8/95); 664 So.2d 718, writ denied, 95-2919 (La. 2/9/96); 667 So.2d 531.
Mr. Buford's Seaman Status under the Jones Act
As aforementioned, the test for seaman status is twofold and conjunctive. "First, . . . `an employee's duties must "contribut to the function of the vessel or to the accomplishment of its mission."' . . . Second, . . . a seaman must have a connection to a vessel in navigation (or to an identifiable group of such vessels) that is substantial in terms of both its duration [the temporal element] and its nature [the functional element]." Chandris, 515 U.S. at 368, 115 S.Ct. at 2190 (citation omitted). See also Papai, 520 U.S. at 554, 117 S.Ct. at 1540; Roberts, 266 F.3d at 374. Each prong must be considered in turn.
The first prong of this fact-intensive test is a broad threshold inquiry. Typically, it is easily satisfied, and a maritime employee who does the ship's work falls within the purview of the Jones Act. Indeed, " ll who work at sea in the service of a ship" are potential seamen. Chandris, 515 U.S. at 368, 115 S.Ct. at 2190 (quoting McDermott Int'l, Inc. v. Wilander, 498 U.S. 337, 354, 111 S.Ct. 807, 817 (1991)). See also Wisner v. Prof'l Divers of New Orleans, 98-1755, p. 3 (La. 3/2/99); 731 So.2d 200, 203, cert. denied, 528 U.S. 922, 120 S.Ct. 285 (1999); Hufnagel v. Omega Serv. Indus., Inc., 182 F.3d 340, 347 (5th Cir. 1999).
The court noted that Mr. Buford did not contribute to the vessel's navigation. We note at the outset that it is neither necessary for the maritime worker to aid in navigation nor to participate in actual transportation of the vessel in order to satisfy the first prong. Little v. Amoco Prod. Co., 98-1130 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/14/99); 734 So.2d 933, writ denied, 99-1752 (La. 10/1/99); 748 So.2d 446; Wilander, 498 U.S. 337, 111 S.Ct. 807; Wisner, 731 So.2d 200. Further, we find an absence of factual support for the trial judge's blanket observation that Mr. Buford did not contribute to the accomplishment of a vessel's mission. Mr. Buford's responsibilities with Cardinal included cleaning the work area and platform, lubricating, and painting. As a wireline helper, he maintained both the wireline and the down hole equipment and assisted the wireline operator in servicing oil wells. We believe that some, if not all, of these tasks could be considered as contributing to the function of the particular vessel upon which they were performed or to the accomplishment of its mission. This is especially true in light of the Louisiana Supreme Court's recent finding that a claimant who performed maintenance and repair work satisfied this first prong. Richard v. Mike Hooks, Inc., 2001-0145 (La. 10/16/01); ___ So.2d ___.
To exhaust the inquiry of the first prong, we examine Mr. Buford's work on each of the five vessels individually. The L/B J.A. Holleman, considered here in particular, had its own crew, of which Mr. Buford was not a member. Wireline operator Mr. Comeaux testified in deposition:
Q: So would you agree with me that there is also a purpose of the vess
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|