# Lormand v. Superior Oil Co.

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · June 5, 1987 · 845 F.2d 536

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8959867

## Case

- **Full name:** John LORMAND, Cross-Appellee v. The SUPERIOR OIL COMPANY, Cross-Appellee and ARIES MARINE CORPORATION, Cross-Appellee, Cross-Claimant-Appellant v. INTERNATIONAL MOORING & MARINE, and in Cross-Claim-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** June 5, 1987
- **Citations:** 845 F.2d 536; 1988 A.M.C. 2362; 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 18288; 1987 WL 45786
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Brown
- **Judges:** Brown, Garwood, Rubin
- **Cited by:** 23 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8959867

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- affirming grant of summary judgment on the basis that because the injured welder spent only 14% of his work activity aboard vessels during a 34 month period of employment, there was insufficient evidence to support submission of question of seaman status to the jury
- holding that Scindia imposes no duty on a vessel to monitor a contractor’s operations for the development of hazardous conditions
- noting that the appellant “spent proportionally even less time working on a vessel ” than did the appellant in Barrett

## Opinion text

JOHN R. BROWN, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I Concur. I concur fully in the Court’s opinion denying Robinson-Barrett seaman’s status. With less enthusiasm, I concur in denial of § 905(b) relief from Aries, the vessel owner. I concur solely because the gangway was not being used — or intended by IMM to be used — as a gangway. Rather it was used — and intended to be used — as a work platform by welders. No Captain in his right mind could think allowing a gangway to be unsecured for an hour could satisfy the demanding standards of the general maritime law as far back as the Laws of Oleron, the Jones Act, or even Scindia’s treatment of § 905. And under no circumstances would he be permitted to retire to much needed sleep confident that somehow, someone — not asleep — would become conscious that for the gangway to be safe as ingress or egress from the vessel, it would now have to be securely fastened. Whether characterized as seaworthiness or unseaworthiness, failure to establish this would be such glaring fault that neither § 905 or Scindia, not even F.R.Civ.P. 52(a) could ever rescue the vessel from the maritime inexorable decree of absolute liability.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8959867. Public record. Not legal advice.