Desper v. Starved Rock Ferry Co.
Headline: Court rules seasonal repair worker on laid-up sightseeing boats is not a 'seaman,' blocking a federal Jones Act death claim and leaving state compensation as the likely avenue.
Holding:
- Blocks federal Jones Act death claims for workers doing seasonal repairs on laid-up vessels.
- Leaves state workers’ compensation as a likely remedy in many cases.
- Does not extend Jones Act coverage based on the 1939 railroad-employee amendment.
Summary
Background
Petitioner is the mother of Thomas J. Desper, Jr., who died from an on-the-job explosion. She sued his employer, a small company that runs sightseeing motorboats on the Illinois River, for damages under the Jones Act. Desper worked seasonally: he helped prepare boats for launching, obtained an operator’s license, and after rehire in March 1948 was doing cleaning, painting, and waterproofing while the boats were blocked up for winter. On April 26 he and others were on a company barge painting life preservers when a fire extinguisher exploded, killing him.
Reasoning
The Court addressed whether Desper was a "seaman" under the Jones Act. Petitioner argued that a 1939 amendment to the Federal Employers’ Liability Act broadened the Jones Act to cover anyone whose work substantially affects navigation. The Court rejected that reading, holding the amendment only redefined "employee" for the railroad law and did not change who counts as a seaman under the Jones Act. The Court emphasized that the boats were not afloat, the work was shore-like seasonal repair, and the law covers seamen in being, not probable future seamen. The Court therefore found Desper was not a seaman and affirmed the lower court's judgment.
Real world impact
The decision means workers doing seasonal repairs on laid-up vessels cannot recover under the Jones Act as seamen in similar circumstances. The opinion leaves open whether other federal laws, like the Longshoremen’s Act, or state workers’ compensation provide remedies, because those questions were not raised here.
Dissents or concurrances
Justices Black and Douglas dissented and would have affirmed the jury verdict for petitioner.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?