 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Buford v. Cardinal Services12/12/2001
el to work off of or provide a place to operate the units and the other tools that were needed to conduct operations on the platform?
A: Yeah. We needed the boat to hold our [wireline] unit.
Mr. Tommy Masanz, Cardinal's Eastern Division Wireline Manager, testified in deposition that the mission of the vessel was not to conduct wireline operations thereon. His belief mirrored the finding of the trial judge, namely, that its mission was to serve as a work area or work deck. However, if Mr. Buford was indeed using the vessel as a work area and was retrieving tools and such therefrom, then he could reasonably be considered as contributing to its mission.
More reasonably, however, a jury could conclude that, despite the testimony of Mr. Comeaux and Mr. Masanz, the vessel's mission became wireline operations in and of itself. This is particularly plausible especially since, according to the deposition testimony of Mr. Buford and others, the wireline unit was aboard the vessel and not the platform. Since Mr. Buford was a wireline helper, he reasonably could be considered to be doing this ship's work even if, in addition to housing the wireline unit, the vessel served to house tools and to provide additional workspace as well. Accordingly, we believe that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the wireline operations at the platform could have been accomplished in this instance had the vessel not been there. If the operations could not have been so performed for whatever reason, then it is certainly reasonable that Mr. Buford's duties as a wireline helper at this platform contributed to the function of the L/B J.A. Holleman or to the accomplishment of its mission. We focus particularly here on the L/B J.A. Holleman, as did the trial judge in his reasons for judgment. We note, however, that the totality of the employment-related circumstances need be considered- there are five vessels at issue here, not just one.
The M/V Cardinal III, the L/B T.C. Holleman, and the L/B J.W. Collins had only two people aboard, the wireline operator and Mr. Buford, the wireline helper. Even if he cannot rightfully be categorized as a member of a "crew," each vessel was used to perform platform wireline operations, and Mr. Buford's job was to assist in these operations. Therefore, along with his time as deckhand aboard the L/B R.E. Johnson assisting the short-handed crew, Mr. Buford could reasonably be considered to be doing these ships' work and contributing to their respective missions.
The second, "substantial connection" prong of the test is often the determinative one. It consists of both temporal and functional elements, which is to say that the focus is on the substantiality of the connection to a vessel or identifiable group of vessels. The connection must be substantial in terms of both duration and the nature.
First, "the inquiry into the nature [the functional element] must concentrate on whether the employee's duties take him to sea." Papai, 520 U.S. at 555, 117 S.Ct. at 1540. Mr. Buford's duties were wireline work. This work necessarily took him to sea to various platform locations, notwithstanding the fact that he was flown by helicopter to the platform where he sustained the injuries that are the subject matter of this litigation. Wireline work does not always mandate the presence of a vessel. However, as discussed above, because the respective missions of the vessels could reasonably be construed as wireline work, a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the nature of his work as a wireline helper substantiates his connection to Cardinal's fleet. Cardinal points out in brief that the L/B J.A.
Holleman was used p
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|