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
How later courts described this case
- 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
- "Recovery for injury to a person, other than a Jones Act seaman, working on the outer continental shelf is governed by the LHWCA...."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ALVIN B. RUBIN, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
While I continue to hold the views stated in my dissent from the majority opinion in Barrett v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., 781 F.2d 1067 (5th Cir.1985) (en banc), the test applied in that opinion is now the law of the circuit, and I, therefore, concur.