# 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/8959868

## 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 Rubin
- **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/8959868

## 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

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8959868. Public record. Not legal advice.