Background: The plaintiff, Zachary Alfred, was allegedly injured while working onboard the M/V Superior Ambition. The vessel was owned by the defendant, Superior Energy Services, LLC.

Alfred worked as an employee for SMI Companies. His job duties included sandblasting and painting an offshore platform while suspended from a lift held by the M/V Superior Ambition's crane.  Alfred fell approximately four feet to the deck of the vessel while attempting to climb over the lift's guardrail. The vessel was at sea at the time the incident occurred.

Neither Alfred's original nor amended complaint explicitly alleged Jones Act claims; the complaint generally stated that the case was brought pursuant to admiralty and general maritime law.

The defendants filed the present motion for summary judgment, alleging that Alfred was not a Jones Act seaman and sought to dismiss his Jones Act claims. Alfred stated that he made a general maritime negligence claim against Superior, and summary judgment should be denied.

Issue: Whether the Court will grant Alfred's motion for summary judgment.

Held:
Alfred must show that he was a seaman to recover under the Jones Act for negligence. Seaman is not defined under the Jones Act, but not every maritime worker on a ship at sea is automatically a member of the vessel within the statutory meaning.

To qualify as a seaman, a party must show: (1) that the employee's duties contributed to the function of a navigable vessel; and (2) a connection to the vessel in navigation (or to an identifiable group of vessels) that was substantial in terms of both its duration and nature.

Alfred was a painter and sandblaster who worked temporary land sea-based jobs. When the incident at issue occurred, Alfred was not employed by Superior Services, the vessel's owner, but by SMI Companies.  Alfred stated that this was his first offshore job and that he had never worked as a seaman before.

Therefore, Alfred was not a seaman, but a worker with only a transitory or sporadic connection to the vessel. Alfred lacked the substantial connection to the vessel which is a condition precedent to recovery under the Jones Act. Thus, Alfred's recovery was limited to that which is available under general maritime law.

The defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted.

Comments:

Summary judgment is appropriate when the facts establish the lack of seaman status. No reasonable evidentiary basis exists to support a jury finding that the injured person is a seaman.

The two part test used above to determine if a party qualifies as a seaman is meant to "separate the sea-based maritime employees who are entitled to Jones Act protection from those land-based workers who have only a transitory or sporadic connection to a vessel in navigation.  Following, the latter's employment would not regularly expose them to the perils of the sea.

Steve Gordon
http://www.offshoreinjuries.com