Lormand v. Aries Marine Corp.
Headline: Denial leaves split on who counts as a 'seaman' under the Jones Act intact, upholding lower courts’ differing tests and leaving injured maritime workers with inconsistent legal standards.
Holding: The Court refused to take the case and left the lower courts’ rulings in place, so the barge worker’s claim that he was a 'seaman' under the Jones Act was not reviewed by this Court.
- Keeps inconsistent seaman tests across federal circuits, causing legal uncertainty for maritime workers.
- May make it harder for injured barge workers to get Jones Act protections in some circuits.
- Leaves employers with differing exposure to seaman-related liability depending on circuit.
Summary
Background
A welding-company employee was hurt while working aboard a barge and sued his employer and the barge owner under the Jones Act, which covers certain maritime workers. The district court granted summary judgment for the employer, finding the worker was not a "seaman" under 46 U.S.C. §688, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed using its long-standing test from Lormand and Barrett.
Reasoning
The central question is who counts as a "seaman" for Jones Act protection. The Court declined to take the case, so the Fifth Circuit’s rule remains controlling there: a person must be permanently assigned to a vessel or perform a substantial part of work aboard it, and their duties must contribute to the vessel’s function. Justice White dissented from the denial, arguing the courts are split: some judges prefer the Seventh Circuit’s test (a more permanent connection and a significant contribution, often for a jury), while the Third Circuit asks whether the person is aboard primarily to aid navigation.
Real world impact
Because the Supreme Court refused review, the differing tests among federal appeals courts remain in place. That means injured maritime workers may get different outcomes depending on where they file, and employers face varying exposure to Jones Act claims. This denial is procedural, not a final decision on the worker’s legal rights, so the issue could return to the Court later.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice White, joined by Justice Blackmun, wrote that the split among circuits warranted the Court’s review and criticized the lack of a uniform national rule.
Opinions in this case:
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?