Case Law

Date Decided: May 11^th, 1998

Originally Filed in: New Jersey (federal)

Decided by: U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit (Federal)

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Judge: Judge Greenberg

Citation: Foulk v. Donjon Marine Company, Inc., 144 F.3d 252, 1998 AMC 2926 (3rd 1998)

Background:
In April of 1993, Donjon Marine Company ("Donjon") entered into a contract to provide Breakwaters with material, barges, tugs and a floating crane for the construction of an artificial reef for the Borough of Avalon, New Jersey.   Foulk was hired by Breakwaters as a freelance diver to assist in the construction of the reef.  Foulk used Donjon's crane barge, the Farrell 256, as a dive station.  Throughout the project, Foulk and the other commercial divers would sleep ashore and report for work each morning.  In total, Foulk's portion of the assignment lasted only ten days, however, on the first day he was injured when he was caught between a jetty and the clamshell bucket.  As a result, he suffered various fractures, a collapsed lung, and an injured right shoulder and filed suit against Donjon.  Breakwaters sought partial summary judgment on the issue that Foulk's does not qualify as a seaman; while Donjon and Foulk cross-moved that Foulk qualified as a Jones Act seaman.  The lower court granted the motion in favor of Breakwaters.  Foulk and Donjon appealed.

Issues:
Did the trial court err in granting the motion in denying Foulk seaman status?

Held:

The court began its analysis by explaining that an individual qualifies as a seaman when his duties contribute to the functioning of the vessel or its mission and that his connection to the vessel in navigation is substantial both in duration and nature.  The district court held that Foulk satisfied the first element of this test but failed to satisfy the second because his 10 day assignment was temporary and therefore not sufficient duration.  The Third Circuit agreed with the district courts analysis that Foulk satisfied the first requirement easily, as well as, the substantial connection in nature element.  Consequently, the court was left with the sole issue of whether Foulk's connection with the vessel was substantial in duration. 

The court explained that when it considers the employees connection to a vessel regarding duration that a court must not take a snapshot at the time of injury; instead, the court must consider the employee's intended relationship as if he had completed the mission uninjured.  Thus, the proper durational measure is the 10 days and not the few hours he was working on site before suffering his injury.  As such, the proper question to ask is whether ten days is sufficient for substantial duration.  When the Supreme Court addressed this issue it refused to create an absolute requirement.  Instead, it explained the proper inquiry is whether the worker in question is a member of the vessel's crew or simply a land-based employee who happens to be working on the vessel at a given time.  This means that the lack of a long attachment cannot deny an individual seaman status.  Accordingly, the court found that the ten day employment is not connection inadequate enough to take the question from a jury.  Due to this, the Third Circuit reversed the lower court and remanded for further proceedings.

Comments:
Under the "no snapshot" doctrine, a court does not evaluate a worker's connection to a vessel or fleet at the moment of injury when determining whether duration of worker's connection to vessel is substantial, as required for worker to be "seaman" under Jones Act; instead, the court must consider worker's intended relationship, as if he or she had completed his or her mission uninjured.