MCCABE
v.
BALL BUILDERS, INC., ET AL.

Flagler Cty. Cir. Ct. | 1973-01-16
No. 1107
38 Fla. Supp. 207 Flagler County Circuit Court (1973) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.

Synopsis

In this maritime injury case, the trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, holding that the plaintiff, who was injured while operating a workboat during a dredging operation, was not a 'seaman' under maritime law and therefore could not pursue Jones Act or general maritime claims. The plaintiff's remedy was limited to Florida's Workers' Compensation Act.


Holding

The court held that McCabe was not a 'seaman' within general maritime law and therefore could not bring Jones Act or general maritime claims. His exclusive remedy for the injury must come under Florida's Workers' Compensation Act.


Headnotes

[1] A plaintiff injured while operating a workboat used to move a dredge is not a "seaman" under general maritime law or the Jones Act if their remedy is covered by state Wor…

[2] Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Key Quotes

“The plaintiff was not a "seaman" within general maritime law and the Jones Act and the plaintiff's remedy for the injury referred to herein must come under the state Workmen's Compensation Act.”

Establishes the core holding that the plaintiff is limited to workers' compensation rather than maritime remedies.

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

On June 25, 1970, plaintiff McCabe was employed by Ball Builders, Inc. as an hourly-wage operator of a workboat used to move a floating dredge called …

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.


Opinion of the Court
HOWELL W. MELTON, Circuit Judge.

HOWELL W. MELTON, Circuit Judge.

Final summary judgment for defendants: This cause was heard on defendant’s motions for summary judgment. The court finds —

1. On June 25, 1970, the defendant, Ball Builders, Inc. was engaged in a dredging operation immediately west of the intracoastal waterway in Flagler County. The purpose of the operation was to cut an overland canal into the Palm Coast residential community from the waterway.

*2082. In the performance of that operation, the defendant, Ball Builders, Inc., utilized a floating dredge, Miriam, and its attendant equipment, part of which consisted of a workboat. The dredge was not self propelled, using the “speed walking process” when in operation and, consequently, the workboat was used to move the dredge from place to place.

3. Plaintiff was employed by defendant, Ball Builders, Inc. and paid an hourly wage as the operator of the workboat. He slept and took his meals ashore.

4. The Miriam was situated some 1,000 feet west of the intracoastal waterway and was forming a canal to the rear of the dredge. A discharge line from the Miriam ran across and under the intracoastal waterway to a booster dredge which was moored to the eastern bank of the waterway. This dredge pumped the dredged material along the discharge line to a deposit area.

5. On the above date plaintiff was seriously injured when his left hand was caught in a generator fan aboard the booster dredge. The injury occurred while the plaintiff was acting within the scope of his employment by defendant, Ball Builders, Inc.

6. For some period following the injury, plaintiff received substantial compensation from the Travelers Insurance Company, the carrier of the defendant, Ball Builders, Inc.

7. Plaintiff and the defendant, Ball Builders, Inc. claim that the defendant, Emmco Insurance Company, was a liability carrier for Ball Builders at the time of the injury and, as such, had insurance coverage for the Jones Act and general maritime claims set forth in the second amended complaint.

The plaintiff was not a “seaman” within general maritime law and the Jones Act and the plaintiff’s remedy for the injury referred to herein must come under the state Workmen’s Compensation Act. Sikes v. Fort Myers Construction Company (Fla. 1966) 191 So.2d 265. See also Potashnick-Badgett Dredging, Inc. v. Whitfield (D.C.A.4), 269 So.2d 36.

The pleadings and the deposition on file show that there is no issue as to any material fact and that the defendants, Ball Builders, Inc. and Emmco Insurance Company are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

Therefore it is ordered and adjudged — (1) That the motions for summary judgment be and the same are hereby granted. (2) That plaintiff, Matthew James McCabe, take nothing by this action and that the defendants, Ball Builders, Inc. and Emmco Insurance Company recover their taxable costs from plaintiff in the sum of $104.90, for which let execution issue.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw