 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Buford v. Cardinal Services12/12/2001
rimarily as a work area adjacent to the platform. It bears repeating, however, that the wireline unit was aboard the deck of the L/B J.A. Holleman. Also, it should not be ignored that Mr. Buford's connection to the group of vessels in question is what matters. And the same logic that applies to Mr. Buford's functional connection to the L/B J.A. Holleman applies to the other vessels as well.
As to duration (the temporal element), A worker who spends less than about 30 percent of his time in the service of a vessel in navigation should not qualify as a seaman under the Jones Act. This figure of course serves as no more than a guideline established by years of experience, and departure from it will certainly be justified in appropriate cases. . . . And where undisputed facts reveal that a maritime worker has a clearly inadequate temporal connection to vessels in navigation, the court may take the question from the jury by granting summary judgment or a directed verdict. Chandris, 515 U.S. at 371, 115 S.Ct. at 2191; Roberts, 266 F.3d at 375 (emphasis added).
Moreover, " he 30 percent floor does not change when an `identifiable group' of vessels in navigation is at issue, rather than just one vessel." Roberts, 266 F.3d at 375. See also St. Romain v. Indus. Fabrication and Repair Serv., Inc., 203 F.3d 376 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 816, 121 S.Ct. 53 (2000); Hufnagel, 182 F.3d 340. "In deciding whether there is an identifiable group of vessels of relevance for a Jones Act seaman-status determination, the question is whether the vessels are subject to common ownership or control." Roberts, 266 F.3d at 376 (quoting Papai, 520 U.S. at 557, 117 S.Ct. at 1541).
We begin first by recognizing that during his entire employment with Cardinal, all of Mr. Buford's work was aboard Cardinal- owned and controlled vessels, i.e., those owned either by Cardinal, the Cardinal Marine Division, or another Cardinal division. There was no other vessel or any third party vessel involved. Depending on agreements with and requests from Cardinal's oil company customers, wireline operations were often performed at a number of different job locations owned and operated by those customers. Cardinal submits that over 55 percent of Mr. Buford's work was performed either in the Cardinal shop (22.25 percent) or while performing wireline work on a fixed platform where no vessel was involved (33.14 percent). Cardinal also submits, however, that Mr. Buford performed wireline services on wells from the M/V Cardinal III, the L/B T.C. Holleman, and the L/B J.W. Collins.
According to the daily operations reports, the work upon these three vessels constituted 27.30 percent of Mr. Buford's employment time. Moreover, the seven days in Cardinal's marine division spent aboard the L/B R.E. Johnson assisting the short-handed crew account for 10.21 percent. And finally, the assignment with the L/B J.A. Holleman accounts for 4.62 percent of his total working hours.
Mr. Buford suggests in brief, and we agree, that the trial judge neglected to consider the claimant's time aboard all five vessels. He urges that, according to Cardinal's own calculations, over 42 percent of his total working hours were performed on the five Cardinal-owned and controlled vessels. We believe this to be a reasonable assessment of the facts and one that creates a genuine issue thereof. Of all five ships, the L/B J.A. Holleman was the only one to have a separate crew.
But, even if his time aboard this vessel is not calculated, his cumulative percentage of work time aboard Cardinal-owned and controlled vessels could reasonably remain above 30 percent. And it would not matter that the calculation was made without figu
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.
|
|