VESSEL OWNSERHIP MATTERS: SEAMAN STATUS DENIED BY EMPLOYER’S LACK OF OWNERSHIP RESULTING IN EMPLOYEE’S SPORADIC CONNECTION
Price v. Quality Energy Serv., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12562*, 2021 WL 234003
By: Dylan Hoke
The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Lake Charles Division recently considered a motion for summary judgment regarding seaman’s status under the Jones Act.[1] Plaintiff was working as a plug and abandon helper on a platform owned by W&T in the Gulf of Mexico, when he was struck by a pipe that was being lifted by a crane attached to the liftboat EYMARD. It was owned and operated by Offshore Marine.[2] Plaintiff named his employer, Quality Energy Services (“QES”), as one of the defendants alleging that QES was liable as his Jones Act Employer.[3] QES subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment maintaining that there are no material facts in dispute and that plaintiff is not a Jones Act Seaman. While seaman status is generally a factual issue left to resolution by a jury,[4] summary judgment is appropriate when the undisputed material facts establish beyond question the lack of seaman status.[5]
To qualify as a seaman, the employee must show (1) that his duties contributed to the function of a vessel or the accomplishment of its mission; and (2) that he had a connection to a vessel, or identifiable group of vessels, in navigation that was substantial in both duration and nature.[6] This second prong attempts to separate sea-based maritime employees entitled to Jones Act protection from land-based workers whose sporadic or transitory connection to a vessel does not regularly expose them to the perils of the sea.[7] Deposition testimony showed that for the three months Plaintiff worked at QES he was sporadically assigned plug and abandon jobs offshore that ranged from one week to a month and half in duration. While he always worked on the W&T platform, two different vessels owned by two different companies were present at the platform. Furthermore, Plaintiff never assisted in the navigation of any vessel, nor did he perform any maintenance or repair work on any vessel or their cranes. Lastly, QES did not own, operate, or charter any liftboat that Plaintiff worked on nor where they involved in the decision to have the EYMARD present at the W&T platform.
The court granted QES’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that Plaintiff lacked a substantial connection to a vessel or identifiable fleet of vessels. The evidence showed that Plaintiff worked on whatever vessel was present at the platform when he arrived to perform the plug and abandon work and, more importantly, none of the vessels were under QES’s common ownership or control. Absent any probative evidence to the contrary, this sporadic connection to vessels not owned by Plaintiff’s employer failed to satisfy seaman status and provide the Plaintiff with Jones Act protection.
[1] 46 U.S.C. § 30104 et seq.
[2] Price v. Quality Energy Serv., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12562*, 2021 WL 234003
[3] Id. at 12563*
[4] Ardoin v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., 641 F.2d 277,280 (5th Cir. 1981).
[5] Hemba v. Freeport McMoran Energy Partners, Ltd., 811 F.2d 276, 277 (5th Cir. 1987).
[6] Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, 115 S.Ct. 2172, 2190 (1995).
[7] Id. at 2190.
