BOBBY JOE CRAFTON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
TENNESSEE VALLEY SAND & GRAVEL COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the plaintiff was a seaman acting in the course of his employment when injured, and the district court's findings were not clearly erroneous.
Plaintiff sued under the Jones Act after being injured while temporarily assigned to a newly constructed dredge. The district court found he was a sea…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Course Of Employment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to Rule 18 of the Rules of the Court, this case has been placed on the summary calendar for disposition without oral argument.1
Crafton brought suit under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 688. The district court found that he was a “seaman” acting in the course of his employment as a member of the crews of the Dredge Emma Coffey and the Dredge McCullough when he was injured while temporarily assigned to a newly constructed dredge being prepared for use by his employer. Since recovery under the Jones Act is predicated on the injury taking place “in the course of employment”, the exact place of injury is not controlling. Magnolia Towing Company v. Pace, 5 Cir., 1967, 378 F. 2d 12. The only requirement is that the seaman be “doing the work of his employer pursuant to his employer’s orders.” Braen v. Pfeifer Oil Transportation Company, 1959, 361 U.S. 129, 133, 80 S.Ct. 247, 250, 4 L.Ed.2d 191. This presupposes that the injured person is a seaman within the meaning of the Act. The sole issue here, as it was in the district court, is whether Crafton was a seaman. The conclusion of the district court that he was at the time of his injury is sustained by the underlying facts. The findings are not clearly erroneous. There the matter ends.
Affirmed.
. In order to establish a docket control procedure, the Fifth Circuit adopted new Rules 17-20 on December 6, 1968. See Wittner v. United States, 5 Cir., 1969, 406 F. 2d 1165, Fn. 1 and Appendix thereto.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mrs. Francis Nell Higginbotham v. Mobil OIL Corp., 545 F.2d 422 (5th Cir. 1977)
-
Guidry v. S. La. Contractors, Inc., 614 F.2d 447 (5th Cir. 1980)
-
Harris J. Doucet v. Wheless Drilling Co., 467 F.2d 336 (5th Cir. 1972)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Braen v. Pfeifer Oil Transp. Co., Inc., 361 U.S. 129 (U.S. 1959)
- Wittner v. United States, 406 F.2d 1165 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Magnolia Towing Co. v. Pace, 378 F.2d 12 (5th Cir. 1967)