Louisiana 1st Cir. Appeal Court Reverses Seaman Status Post Sanchez
Jackson v. Chem Carriers, L.L.C. (2022 La. App. LEXIS 1912*; 2022 0043 [La.App.1 Cir. 11/04/22]; 2022 WL 16708266) (La.App. 1st Cir. Nov. 4, 2022)
The Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal recently unanimously reversed a trial court’s finding that the plaintiff, Clarence Jackson, was a seaman and awarded $1.4+ million in damages against his employer, Plaquemine Point Shipyard, LLC (PPS), and its liability insurer, Starr Indemnity & Liability Company (Starr), in solido.1 The appeal court rendered judgment in favor of the appellants.
The plaintiff was injured on October 20, 2016 after tripping on a welding lead on barge PPS-10 injuring his right shoulder.2 He filed suit in state court under the Jones Act and alternatively pursuant to the Longshore Act3 against PPS, his employer and its insurer along with Chem Carriers, L.L.C. and its insurer asserting that both PPS and Chem Carriers owned the facility and were joint employers.4
The panel first addressed whether the facility, PPS-10 is a vessel. In doing so, it relied on the Supreme Court’s opinions in Stewart v. Dutra Construction Co.,5 Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Fla.6 as well as Evansville & Bowling Green Packet Co. v. Chero Cola Bottling Co.7 and Pavone v. Mississippi Riverboat Amusement Corp.8 and concluded that though PPS-10 was originally constructed as a barge to transport rail way cars, it was altered by PPS and used primarily as a work platform and though it was moved a few times prior to its present location, since then it shifted only a few feet for incoming barges.9 The facility is not self-propelled or certificate of inspection with the Coast Guard and though seldomly moved required assistance of another motorized vessel.10 It fails the pass the reasonable observer test of Lozman.11
Next, Judge Theriot, as author of the opinion, analyzed the plaintiff’s seaman status. In doing so, it examined first his connection to a vessel or fleet of vessels under common ownership is substantial in nature.12 This consisted of four parts: first, whether he owed his allegiance to a vessel or shoreside employer.13 The appeal court determined that he owed his allegiance to another barge owned by PPS and his employer.14 The second question is whether his work was sea-based.15 Considering the facts in toto and jurisprudence, it concluded that his work was not sea-based.16 Third, the issue is whether his work involved assignment to a specific task which when over his connection to the vessel was ended.17 Though his tasks were not specific, he was not a member of the crew of any vessel and did not sail with them.18 Fourth and finally, the court considered whether he was subject to the perils of the sea. As his work was not sea-based and he did not sail with the vessel though all workers on vessels are subject to sea perils.19
Next, the court assessed whether the time on the vessels was substantial in duration.20 Though the plaintiff testified he worked 90% to 100% of his time over water,21 his work on vessels not owned by his employer is irrelevant to his seaman’s status nor could his time as merely as a passenger on any vessels.22
The trial court was in error finding he satisfies the standard to establish status as a seaman.23 The judgment was reversed and remanded.
We wish to thank George Legrand of Mouledoux, Bland. LeGrand & Brackett of New Orleans for bringing this opinion to our attention. We delayed our summary until we could also provide both Lexis and WestLaw citations. We will continue to monitor this case to see if a writ of certiorari is taken to the Louisiana Supreme Court and whether the writ is granted.
1 $38,677.07 for past medical expenses; $94,310.65 for future medical expenses; $286,273.56 for past lost wages; $287,406.91 for future lost wages/loss of earning capacity; $300,000 for pain and suffering; $100,000 for mental anguish and trauma; $100,000 for disability; $100,000 for loss of enjoyment of life; maintenance at $75 per day; and $100,000 in general damages for PPS's failure to pay maintenance and cure. (2022 La. App. LEXIS 1912 at *6)
2 2022 La. App. LEXIS 1912 at *4
3 33 U.S.C. § 905(b)
4 2022 La. App. LEXIS 1912 at *4-5
5 543 U.S. 481, 125 S.Ct. 1118, 160 L.Ed.2d 932 (2005)
6 568 U.S. 115, 133 S.Ct. 735, 184 L.Ed.2d 604 (2013)
7 271 U.S. 19, 22, 46 S.Ct. 379, 380, 70 L.Ed. 805 (1926)
8 52 F.3d 560, 570 (5th Cir. 1995)
9 2022 La. App. LEXIS 1912 at *16-17
10 Id. at *20
11 Id.
12 Id. at *31
13 Id. at *32
14 Id.
15 Id. at *33
16 Id. at *38
17 Id. at *39
18 Id. at *41
19 Id. at *41-42
20 Id. at *42
21 Id. at *44
22 Id.
23 The court noted that even if the standard of manifest error applied, the result would be the same as there is no reasonable factual basis for the finding. Id. at *44-45
