# Antonios Latsis v. Chandris, Inc., Chandris, S.A., Trans Oceanic Shipping Co., Ltd.

> Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · March 24, 1994 · 20 F.3d 45

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9486558

## Case

- **Full name:** Antonios LATSIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHANDRIS, INC., Chandris, S.A., Trans Oceanic Shipping Co., Ltd., Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- **Decided:** March 24, 1994
- **Citations:** 20 F.3d 45; 1994 A.M.C. 2894; 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 5675
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Kearse
- **Judges:** Oakes, Kearse, Cardamone
- **Cited by:** 36 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/9486558

## Opinion text

KEARSE, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent.
Though I agree that the four criteria articulated by the majority ante at 57 should govern the determination of whether an employee is a “seaman” within the meaning of the Jones Act, even under that formulation I am unpersuaded that the non-dry-dock part of the district court’s instructions, to which Latsis made no objection, constituted “plain” error. Further, I am unpersuaded that the district judge erred in instructing the jury that, in determining whether plaintiff Latsis was a seaman, it should disregard the period during which the Galileo was in dry dock. The Jones Act concept of “ ‘seaman’ ” contains a “land-based/sea-based distinction.” McDermott International, Inc. v. Wilander, 498 U.S. 337, 354 , 111 S.Ct. 807, 817 , 112 L.Ed.2d 866 (1991). The 65, million-dollar dry-dock conversion and reconstruction of the Galileo was unquestionably a land-based activity. In my view, this part of the instructions — the only part to which Latsis objected — was correct.
Accordingly, since in my view the only portion of the instructions to which Latsis objected was not erroneous, and since the remainder- of the instructions did not constitute plain error, I would affirm.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9486558. Public record. Not legal advice.