Boudloche v. Howard Trucking Co., Inc.

632 F.2d 1346 (5th Cir. 1980)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P was employed by Howard (D) as a truck driver. D was engaged in the business of transporting oil and marine equipment used in drilling for oil and gas offshore and on land. P hauled heavy oil field equipment on a large truck and a flatbed trailer rig. Approximately half of his runs were from one land-based site to another. The other half required him to either pick up or deliver equipment at a dock. Ten to twenty percent of the docks worked by P had no loading or unloading equipment or personnel. At such docks, P did all of the work of loading and unloading the equipment by himself. The remaining docks where P picked up or delivered equipment were equipped with cranes and laborers called 'roustabouts' to load and unload. P was expected to assist in the loading and unloading process even at those well-equipped facilities. P estimated that he had a delivery or a pick-up two or three times a week at a poorly equipped dock where he had to do the loading or unloading himself. P was assigned to pick up several small boats used in oil and gas drilling operations. These boats were to be picked up at an unequipped dock facility. The boats were tied up at the water's edge. The dock was no more than a gravel and shell-covered slope leading down into the water. P backed his trailer to the water's edge ran his winch line from the back of his cab along the trailer bed, and tied it to the front of the first boat. He then winched the boat out of the water and onto his trailer. He loaded two boats in this manner. The third boat was made of steel and much heavier than the first two. It slipped and P sustained a crushed pelvis and urological injuries. Everyone agreed that P satisfied the situs requirement under LHWCA. The issue was whether a claimant who regularly performs indisputably maritime operations, but whose maritime operations constitute only a small portion of his overall working time, would be covered by the Act. The Board rejected P’s claim because his maritime employment was insubstantial. P appealed.