• Decrease 

font size
  • Reset 

font size to default
  • Increase 

font size
HOT NEWS
Home Jones Act - What is a Seaman? Lennis Joseph George v Apache Corporation, et al.
PDF Print E-mail
Share
Jones Act - Seaman
Monday, 29 June 2009 21:36
Case Name: Lennis Joseph George v Apache Corporation, et al.
Date of Judgment: 8th June 2009
Court: U.S.D.C. - E.D. Louisiana
Judge: District Judge Berrigan
Citation: 2009 WL 1649734 (E.D.La.)

Background: Before the Court was defendant Fluid Crane's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff Lennis George opposed the motion.

George alleged he was injured while ascending metal steps on the Apache 623B production platform located offshore. Fluid Crane sought summary judgment claiming George was not a Jones Act seaman.

Issue: Whether the Court will grant summary judgment to Fluid Crane.

Held:
To establish seaman status for Jones Act purposes, George must have established that: (1) his duties contributed to the function of the vessel or the accomplishment of its mission; and (2) that he had a connection to a vessel or an identifiable fleet of vessels in navigation that was substantial in terms of both its duration and nature.

First, the Court noted that George admitted there were no facts that would support a finding of seaman status. George's admission was binding, but he could have moved to withdrawal or amend his admission. However, he failed to do either.

Thus, the Court found that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to George's seaman status and granted Fluid Crane's motion for summary judgment.

In the alternative, the Court found that George failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact as to George's seaman status even if this Court were to disregard George's prior judicial admission.

No evidence existed that George was injured on a "vessel." The Fifth Circuit has determined that "fixed platforms" are not vessels and workers injured on them are covered under the Longshore Harbor Workers' Compensation Act ("LHWCA"), not the Jones Act.

Thus, the Court would still have granted summary judgment to Fluid Crane.

Comments:

The Court noted that summary judgment was granted for the defendant based mostly on his admission to having no evidence he was a seaman. Further, he failed to redact his statement, which gave the Court no choice but to grant summary judgment.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 'Requests for Admission' states that a previous admission is conclusively established unless the court, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended.

Steve Gordon
http://www.offshoreinjuries.com

 

Comments
Search RSS
Only registered users can write comments!

!joomlacomment 4.0 Copyright (C) 2009 Compojoom.com . All rights reserved."

Last Updated on Wednesday, 21 October 2009 19:46
 

Share it!

Translate This Site

English Arabic Bulgarian Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Traditional) Croatian Czech Danish Dutch Finnish French German Greek Hindi Italian Japanese Korean Norwegian Polish Portuguese Romanian Russian Spanish Swedish Catalan Filipino Hebrew Indonesian Latvian Lithuanian Serbian Slovak Slovenian Ukrainian Vietnamese Albanian Estonian Galician Hungarian Maltese Thai Turkish