Arnold v. Luedtke Engineering Company
Richard Arnold was employed with Leudtke, a maritime construction and dredging company, over the past twenty-three years in various capacities including runner, deckhand, tugboat pilot, and project foreman. At the time of his injury, Arnold was working on the Black Rock Lock project. The project was slated to take 9 months, divided into four phases, and Arnold was the project foreman. In addition to reporting to the superintendent, his duties included acting as the tugboat captain, overseeing the sheeting phase, pouring concrete, tying rebar, setting tubes, inspecting and repairing the derrick boat every morning, and finally welding wedge plates to each tube. During the final phase of the project, Arnold was required to lift and carry one-hundred pound plates over a short distance. After several weeks of this work he began to experience back pain, eventually became unable to get out of bed due to the pain, and underwent surgery to repair his back. Arnold brought suit against Luedtke alleging negligence under the Jones Act and vessel unseaworthiness. In response, Luedtke filed a motion for summary judgment, which the district court granted, because Arnold failed to qualify as a seaman.
Did the trial court err in denying the plaintiff Jones Act seaman status?
The Sixth Circuit began its analysis by stating the test outlined by
the Supreme Court in Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 347 (1995) to determine whether an
employee qualifies as a Jones Act seaman. To qualify an employee must show that his
duties contribute to the function of the vessel or to the accomplishment of its
mission and that he has a connection to a vessel, or vessels, in navigation
that is substantial in duration and nature.
The Supreme Court explained that when addressing the second part of the
seaman test that a court must look at the totality of the circumstances of the
individual's employment to determine if he had a sufficient relation and that
employing a "snapshot" test is improper.
Here, the Sixth Circuit found
that Arnold easily satisfied the first prong of the seaman test since he was
the tugboat captain, conducted daily maintenance of all the vessels involved in
the Black Rock Lock project, and was working on a vessel when he was injured.
The court then shifted its analysis to the second prong where it stated the Supreme Court's rule of thumb that when a worker spends about thirty percent of his time in the service of a vessel in navigation that he should qualify as a seaman under the Jones Act. While this rule can be deviated from under the appropriate circumstances, the Ninth Circuit found the decision of the lower court to divide the Black Rock Lock project into distinct phases was improper. When doing so, the district court found that Arnold did not qualify as a seaman. Looking at the project in phases, however, is exactly what the Supreme Court warned against in its explanation in Chandris that courts must look at the individual's employment as a whole and not at the instant of the injury.
As such, the Sixth Circuit conducted its own analysis of Arnold's employment during the entire project. It found that fifty-five percent of his time was spent entirely aboard the derrick boat and that in the final phase he spent another ten percent of his time in service of the vessels. Thus, Arnold spent well over the thirty percent of his time on the project working in direct connection to the vessel and as a result there are genuine issues of material fact relation to Arnold's connection to the vessels that should be left to the trier of fact.
A worker who spends less than about 30 percent of his time in the service of a vessel in navigation typically does not qualify as a seaman under the Jones Act but may under the appropriate circumstances
<< PREVNEXT >>
