# Helen Ehret Bach, Eugene G. Bach, Iii, Janet B. Lashley v. Trident Steamship Company, Inc.

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · December 2, 1991 · 947 F.2d 1290

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9482225

## Case

- **Full name:** Helen Ehret BACH, Eugene G. Bach, III, Janet B. Lashley, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TRIDENT STEAMSHIP COMPANY, INC., Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** December 2, 1991
- **Citations:** 947 F.2d 1290; 1992 A.M.C. 643; 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 28188; 1991 WL 236863
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Davis
- **Judges:** Brown, Jolly, Davis
- **Cited by:** 20 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/9482225

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9482225. Public record. Not legal advice.