In a new unpublished decision, the Fifth Circuit affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment against an injured worker. The plaintiff was injured while “attempting to inspect a lower compartment on [a] ship.” He fell down a ladder after climbing under a locked chain. Following his injury, the injured plaintiff filed suit under Section 905(b) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, general maritime law, and state law. The district court held that it lacked jurisdiction because the vessel on which the plaintiff was injured had never been completed. Further, the defendant enjoyed government contractor immunity such that it was shielded from liability. Finally, the district court determined that the mechanism of the plaintiff’s injury was an open and obvious condition. The Fifth Circuit agreed, stating: The ship had not yet earned vessel status. Although the ship had completed sea trials, it “was still being outfitted and inspectedRead more
Fifth Circuit Addresses Longshore Vessel Status and “Substantial Nexus”
The Fifth Circuit issued a new decision affirming the denial of benefits under both the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. The decision turned on two issues: whether a particular watercraft was a legal “vessel” and whether Claimant’s job activities had a substantial nexus to operations on the Outer Continental Shelf. Factual Background: Claimant worked as a marine carpenter building housing modules designed for use on a tension leg offshore platform named Big Foot. After an alleged injury, Claimant filed a claim for benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act as a shipbuilder. He also argued–in the alternative–that his claim was covered by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. (“OCLSA”) Both the Administrative Law Judge and the Benefits Review Board disagreed with Claimant’s assertion. First, Longshore benefits were denied because the Big Foot was not a “vessel,” thus preventing Claimant fromRead more
New Maritime Articles on SSRN
In case you are in the mood for some light reading, there are a few new articles at the Social Science Research Network that are worth checking out. First, check out If It Looks like a Vessel: The Supreme Court’s ‘Reasonable Oberserver’ Test for Vessel Status by David R. Maass: What is a vessel? In maritime law, important rights and duties turn on whether something is a vessel. In Stewart v. Dutra Construction Co. (2005), the United States Supreme Court held that a vessel need only be “practically capable” of maritime transport. But Stewart left open an important question: Should courts consider the owner’s intended use for the structure in determining whether it counts as a vessel under the statute? Earlier this Term, in Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2013), the Supreme Court answered that question and held that courts should consider only objective facts about the structure’s designRead more
SCOTUS Issued Summary Disposition Reversing A Casino Boat Case
Yesterday the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”) issued a summary disposition in Lemelle v. St. Charles Gaming Co., Inc. We previously discussed Lemelle here. Briefly, in Lemelle, an intoxicated patron fell down the stairs of the M/V CROWN CASINO, a riverboat casino. The plaintiff filed suit seeking damages under general maritime law, which he argued preempted a Louisiana statute limiting liability for loss connected with the service of alcoholic beverages. The dispute became one of vessel status. The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit, determined that the casino riverboat was not a vessel. Interestingly, Louisiana’s Third Circuit cited to a prior federal Fifth Circuit opinion that discussed how the casino was only “theoretically” capable of maritime transport. De La Rosa v. St. Charles Gaming Co., 474 F.3d 185, 187 (5th Cir. 2003). But Louisiana’s Third Circuit did not stop there. It also determined that the CROWN was “practically” incapableRead more
SCOTUS Decided Lozman: The House-Like Floating Structure Was Not a Vessel
Here is the Court’s syllabus in Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida. We will have more analysis of this opinion in the coming weeks. Petitioner Lozman’s floating home was a house-like plywood structure with empty bilge space underneath the main floor to keep it a float. He had it towed several times before deciding on a marina owned by the city of Riviera Beach (City). After various disputes with Lozman and unsuccessful efforts to evict him from the marina, the City brought a federal admiralty lawsuit in rem against the floating home, seeking a lien for dockage fees and damages for trespass. Lozman moved to dismiss the suit for lack of admiralty jurisdiction. The District Court found the floating home to be a “vessel” under the Rules of Construction Act, which defines a “vessel” as including “every description of watercraft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of beingRead more
Supreme Court Grants Another “Vessel” Case. Casino Boats Beware.
On February 21, 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari for Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida. The issue is “[w]hether a floating structure that is indefinitely moored, receives power and other utilities from shore, and is not intended to be used in maritime transportation or commerce constitutes a “vessel” under 1 U.S.C. Sec. 3, thus triggering federal maritime jurisdiction.” SCOTUSBlog’s case page provides a wealth of case information, including the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion from which certiorari was granted. In the Eleventh Circuit, the City of Riviera Beach (“City”) filed an in rem proceeding against Defendant Unnamed Gray, Two-Story Vessel Approximately Fifty-Seven Feet in Length (“Defendant”) for trespass and to foreclose on the City’s maritime lien for unpaid dockage. Defendant argued that his was a “floating residential structure” and not a “vessel,” but the Eleventh Circuit disagreed. Pursuant to 1 U.S.C. Sec. 3, a “vessel” includes “every description ofRead more
