Seaman’s Status; Safety Management Not Related to Operation or Maintenance of Vessels Is Not Included in Computing Time for Status Standard

Seaman’s Status; Safety Management Not Related to Operation or Maintenance of Vessels Is Not Included in Computing Time for Status Standard

By: Kristen Legendre

Edited by: Bryan O’Neill

Merrell v. Weeks Marine, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123439 (D.N.J. September 16, 2015)Plaintiff-employee worked for Weeks Marine as a safety manager in the construction division. During the course of overseeing two constructions projects, he performed daily and weekly safety inspections, safety trainings and meetings, and yearly equipment inspections on land and barges. He contended that 40-45% of his work time was spent aboard defendant’s vessel. The employer asserted that plaintiff conducted most of his safety management responsibilities on land. The plaintiff was conducting a safety meeting aboard barge 271 when he was injured.The employer sought Summary Judgment both on seaman’s status as well as its liability under 33 U.S.C. Sec. 905(b).Analysis of Seaman Status: The determination of seaman status depends on whether the alleged seaman had a more permanent connection to the vessel where he was injured, or whether the work he performed on the vessel was sufficient to establish seaman status. A seaman’s job responsibilities relate to the maintenance, custody, or operation of vessels. Under the Jones Act, a plaintiff must satisfy a two-pronged test to qualify as a seaman: first, that his duties aided the vessel’s functioning or helped accomplish its mission, and second, that his navigational connection with the vessel was “substantial in duration in nature.” In defining “substantial in duration” the Fifth Circuit developed the “30 percent rule” dictating that workers who spend less than 30 percent of their work servicing a vessel in navigation should not qualify as seamen under the Jones Act.The plaintiff failed to satisfy the first prong the Jones Act seaman test because his duties “did not contribute to the vessel’s function or mission” (to serve as a work platform for construction workers). His safety management duties did not involve maintenance, operation, or navigation of the vessel. In addition, he also failed to satisfy the second prong of the test because the record demonstrated that he spent less than 30 percent of his time aboard docked vessels, had never been to sea or experienced its perils, and his work was mostly completed on land and did not relate to the operation of defendant’s barges. The plaintiff’s claims on unseaworthiness and maintenance and cure must be dismissed for his failure to demonstrate that he qualified as a seaman under the Jones Act.Analysis of Recovery under LHWCA: Weeks Marine was not acting in its capacity as a vessel owner, but rather as an employer. Its construction crew placed the matting on the deck while engaging in work incidental to Weeks’ construction project on the barge. Furthermore, the open and obvious nature of the condition of the matting bars plaintiff’s recovery because it was not unduly impractical for him to avoid his injury. The court dismissed the 905(b) claim.