INTERNATIONAL OILFIELD DIVERS, INC., ET AL.
v.
PICKLE ET AL.
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 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1995)…Superior Oil Co., 845 F. 2d 536, 541 (1987), cert. denied, 484 U. S. 1031 (1988); cf. Leonard v. Dixie Well Service & Supply, Inc., 828 F. 2d 291, 295 (1987); Pickle v. International Oilfield Divers, Inc., 791 F. 2d 1237, 1240 (1986), cert. denied, 479 U. S. 1059 (1987). Although some Courts of Appeals have varied the applicable tests to some degree, see, e.g., Johnson v. John F. Beasley Constr. Co., 742 F. 2d, at 1062-1063, the traditional Carumbo seaman status formulation and the subsequent Robison modifi…
-
Haines v. Liggett Grp. Inc., 975 F.2d 81 (3d Cir. 1992)…or contrary to law” standard. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Rule 72(a), Fed.R.Civ.P.; see also Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F. 2d 1108, 1113 (3d Cir.1986); John F. Harkins Co. v. Waldinger Corp., 796 F. 2d 657, 662 (3d Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1059, 107 S.Ct. 939, 93 L.Ed.2d 989 (1987). The Seventh Amendment has controlling force in federal jury cases: “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fac…
-
Painewebber Inc. v. Hartmann, 921 F.2d 507 (3d Cir. 1990)…l language to discern contractual intent is a question of fact, our review is limited to a determination whether the district court’s findings are clearly erroneous. See Harkins Co. v. Waldinger Corp., 796 F. 2d 657, 660 (3d Cir 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1059, 107 S.Ct. 939, 93 L.Ed.2d 989 (1987). Moreover, because this action involves an arbitration agreement connected to a transaction involving interstate commerce, we must look to the federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., and the case law th…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Offshore Co. & The Fid. & Cas. Co. of N.Y. v. Johnie M. Robison, 266 F.2d 769 (5th Cir. 1959)
- Jethro Barrett v. Chevron, 781 F.2d 1067 (5th Cir. 1986)
- Leavitt v. United States, 444 U.S. 833 (U.S. 1979)
- Golomb v. Wadsworth, 444 U.S. 833 (U.S. 1979)
- Dragna v. United States, 469 U.S. 1211 (U.S. 1985)
- Simko v. C & C Marine Maint. Co., 594 F.2d 960 (3d Cir. 1979)
- Dybczak v. Tuskegee Inst., 469 U.S. 1211 (U.S. 1985)
- Johnson v. John F. Beasley Constr. Co., 742 F.2d 1054 (7th Cir. 1984)