Harbor Tug And Barge Company v. Papai

520 U.S. 548 (1997)

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 painting the housing structure of the tug Pt. Barrow when a ladder he was on moved causing him to fall and injure his knee. D had hired P to do the painting work. It was P's task to apply the finish coat. There was no vessel captain on board and P reported to the port captain, who had a dockside office. It was supposed to be a one day job. P was not going to sail with the vessel after he finished painting. P had been employed by D on 12 previous occasions in the 2 1/2 months before his injury. P received his jobs through the Inland Boatman's Union (IBU) hiring hall for the past 2 1/4 years. All the jobs were short-term. The longest lasted about 40 days and most were for three days or under. P performed maintenance, longshoring, and deckhand work. P sued D claiming negligence under the Jones Act and unseaworthiness under general maritime law. P's wife claimed a loss of consortium. D sought summary judgment on Papai's Jones Act and unseaworthiness claims, contending he was not a seaman and so could not prevail on either claim. The Court granted D's motion. The Court reasoned that P was not a seaman within the meaning of the Jones Act or the general maritime law, because 'he did not have a 'more or less permanent connection' with the vessel on which he was injured nor did he perform substantial work on the vessel sufficient for seaman status.' The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a trial. It described the relevant inquiry as 'not whether P had a permanent connection with the vessel [but] whether P's relationship with a vessel (or a group of vessels) was substantial in terms of duration and nature, which requires consideration of the total circumstances of his employment.' The majority reasoned that a jury to conclude P satisfied that test; 'if the type of work a maritime worker customarily performs would entitle him to seaman status if performed for a single employer, the worker should not be deprived of that status simply because the industry operates under a daily assignment rather than a permanent employment system.' D appealed.