Manuel v. P.A.W. Drilling & Well Service, Inc.
Arbie Manuel began working as a floorhand aboard the workover rig, Rig 3, for P.A.W. Drilling & Well Service, Inc. in June of 1995. Rig 3 was bolted on top of a barge for over two years and carried to different worksites by tugboats because the rig had no motor power of its own. The barge itself did not contain any steering mechanisms, navigational devices, bilge pumps, or crew quarters, except for a small shed in which the crew changed clothes. The crew that worked aboard Rig 3 would be transported to the rig each day by a small boat and each evening the boat would return the men to land where they would sleep in lodgings provided by P.A.W. Manuel worked for P.A. W. for two months before suffering an injury when he and a fellow worker attempted to pick up a joint of tubing that had fallen from the barge.
He filed suit against P.A.W. and its insurer under the Jones Act and the general maritime law. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment pertaining to Manuel's status as a seaman. The court ruled in favor of P.A.W and dismissed Manuel's claims because he did not qualify as a seaman because Rig 3 did not qualify as a vessel in navigation. Manual filed a timely appeal.Does a rig attached to a barge that contains no motor power satisfy the vessel in navigation requirement of the Chandris seaman test?
The court began its analysis by explaining that that traditionally a vessel refers to a structure that was designed to transport passengers, cargo, or equipment over navigable waters and that the issue is one grounded in law but sometimes gives rise to questions of fact. To answer the question, the issue requires the court to first consider the purpose for which the craft is constructed and the business in which it engages. Courts that have conducted this analysis pertaining to these types of special purpose structures that serve in part as work platforms have split on whether they satisfy the requirements of a vessel.
The Fifth Circuit went through the progression of its case law and summarized the current state of the precedent that supports finding special structures as vessels as follows: despite the outward appearance of the structure at issue, if a primary purpose of the craft is to transport passengers, cargo, or equipment from place to place across navigable waters, then that structure is a vessel. Particularly in the cases of drilling barges, each barge was used to transport the rig over water to the work site thereby satisfying the vessel test. In contrast, the Fifth Circuit has another line of cases that concludes that certain structures that float upon water are not vessels. Typically, these cases dealt with dry docks or structures that were created to extend or create a work area, were seldom moved or otherwise secured at the time of the accident and any transportation function they formed was incidental to their primary purpose of serving as work platforms. Therefore, the Fifth Circuit adopts a two prong test to determine whether a craft is a vessel. First, a court must consider whether the craft was assembled for the purpose of transporting goods, equipment or cargo across navigable waters. If so, then the court must examine whether the craft's participates in the business of transporting goods over navigable waters. If the court finds that the craft satisfies these two requirements the structure qualifies as a vessel.
Here, it is clear that the first prong is met because P.A.W. created the Rig 3 for the purpose of transporting the workover rig across navigable waters to plug and abandon wells located in various sites on navigable waters. The second prong of the test is the more difficult of the two. In addressing the second issue, courts must evaluate the importance of the craft's transportation function. If the structure engages in transportation incidentally then the structure is not a vessel. Conversely, if transportation is a key element of its function the craft is a vessel. It is important to note, however, that a structure can serve in a dual function of transportation and as a work platform. Here, the court found that the transportation function of Rig 3 was not merely incidental but essential to its function. Rig 3 is a highly mobile vessel that carried all of its equipment over navigable waters so that it could service wells in numerous locations. Thus, Rig 3 is a vessel in navigation.If an owner constructs or assembles a craft for the purpose of transporting passengers, cargo, or equipment across navigable waters and the craft is engaged in that service, that structure is a vessel.
<< PREVNEXT >>
