Lormand v. Aries Marine Corp.

Background

An employee who worked for a welding company was injured while working aboard a barge and sued his employer and the barge owner under the Jones Act. The District Court granted summary judgment for the employer on the Jones Act claim, ruling that the worker was not a "seaman." The Fifth Circuit affirmed, applying its en banc test from Barrett and Lormand.

Reasoning

The central question was who counts as a "seaman" under 46 U.S.C. §688 for Jones Act claims. The Fifth Circuit’s test requires that a person be either permanently assigned to a vessel or perform a substantial part of his work aboard it, and that the person’s duties contribute to the vessel’s function or mission. Some judges in the Fifth Circuit had expressed reservations, preferring a Seventh Circuit approach that would let a jury decide when a worker had a more or less permanent connection and made a significant contribution. The Third Circuit focused the inquiry on whether the worker was aboard primarily to aid navigation.

Real world impact

Because the Court did not agree to review the case, the Fifth Circuit’s definition remains controlling in that circuit, and the lower-court ruling that the injured barge worker was not a seaman stands. That means some maritime workers in the Fifth Circuit may find it harder to qualify for seaman status and the related protections, while workers in other circuits may receive different treatment under their local tests.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice White, joined by Justice Blackmun, dissented and argued the split among the circuits warrants Supreme Court review to resolve the proper definition of seaman status.