river pilot temporarily utilized was not a seaman for purposes of the Jones Act because he was not permanently assigned to a vessel
How later courts described this case
- river pilot temporarily utilized was not a seaman for purposes of the Jones Act because he was not permanently assigned to a vessel
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Before BROWN, JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
W. EUGENE DAVIS, Circuit Judge:
This cause has been remanded to us by the Supreme Court — U.S. —, 111 S.Ct. 2253 , 114 L.Ed.2d 706 , for reconsideration in light of McDermott International, Inc. v. Wilander, 498 U.S. —, 111 S.Ct. 807 , 112 L.Ed.2d 866 (1991). The Court in Wil-ander concluded that a maritime worker need not aid in the navigation of a vessel to be a seaman. That holding, however, does not affect this court’s conclusion that Bach was not a seaman. We did not base our decision on Bach’s seaman status on the relationship of his duties to navigation. Indeed, this issue was never in doubt. Instead, we concluded that Bach was not a seaman because he was not permanently assigned to any particular vessel or fleet of vessels.
Because the rule announced by the Supreme Court in Wilander has no effect on our earlier conclusion, we reinstate our previous judgment. Bach v. Trident S.S. Co., 920 F.2d 322 (5th Cir.1991).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.