International Oilfield Divers, Inc. v. Pickle
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Dissent
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Justice White, with whom The Chief Justice joins,
dissenting.
The Jones Act, 38 Stat. 1185 , as amended, 46 U. S. C. § 688 (a), provides that “[a]ny seaman who shall suffer personal injury in the course of his employment may, at his election, maintain an action for damages at law . . . .” This case presents the question of who is a “seaman” for purposes of the Jones Act.
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, both in this case and in its previous cases, has taken an expansive view in defining who is a seaman. The Fifth Circuit, relying on its earlier opinion in Offshore Co. v. Robison, 266 F. 2d 769 (1959), has taken the position that to be a seaman, a person need not assist in the transportation function of a vessel. See Barrett v. Chevron, U. S. A., Inc., 781 F. 2d 1067, 1073 (1986) (en banc). Other Courts of Appeals, particularly the Third and Seventh Circuits, have rejected this view and require that before a plaintiff can sue under the Jones Act, he must be employed in such a way as to assist in the navigational function of a vessel. See Johnson v. John F. Beasley Construction Co., 742 F. 2d 1054, 1061 (CA7 1984) (“|W]e think the second part of the Robison test strays from important Jones Act principles when it speaks of the employee’s duties as having to relate only to the ‘function of the vessel or the accomplishment of its mission’ without further qualifying ‘function’ and ‘mission’ in terms of the transportation function and mission of the vessel”) (emphasis in original), cert. denied, 469 U. S. 1211 (1985); Simko v. C & C Marine Maintenance Co., 594 F. 2d 960, 964-965 (CA3), cert. denied, 444 U. S. 833 (1979). There is even dis *1060 agreement within the Fifth Circuit over this point. See Barrett, supra, at 1076 (Gee, J., specially concurring).
Because of the direct split among the Courts of Appeals, I would grant the petition.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 3 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(barring claim that death of fisherman was caused by failure to obtain more or better equipment because “[all of these are matters which Congress reserved, both to itself in respect to appropriations, and to the agencies’ conduct by the discretionary function exception]”)
-
("While congressional consent gives an interstate compact some attributes of federal law, the Council members' appointment, salaries, and administrative operations are pursuant to the laws of the four individual states, within parameters set by the Act.")
-
(applying the "indicia" identified by the Supreme Court)
Cited by 72 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Lukens Steel Co. v. United Steelworkers
- Houston Oil & Minerals Corp. v. American International Tool Co.
- Houston Oil & Minerals Corp. and Cross v. American International Tool Company, Third Party Gibralter Insurance Company v
- In re Teamsters Industrial Employees Welfare Fund
- American Telephone And Telegraph Company v. Winback And Conserve Program, Inc.
- Haines v. Liggett Group Inc.
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.