158 So. 3d 270
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- Baldwin, a sandblaster/painter employed by CleanBlast, was assigned to the M/V Brody Paul while performing long-term work for Tennessee Oil and Gas on Gulf of Mexico platforms; alleged injury occurred when he fell while blasting risers on a platform.
- CleanBlast moved for summary judgment arguing Baldwin was not a Jones Act seaman and therefore ineligible for Jones Act and maintenance-and-cure recovery; it also argued no LHWCA 905(b) claim against CleanBlast as it did not own/operate the vessel.
- Trial court initially denied summary judgment on seaman status but granted dismissal of the 905(b) claim; after additional deposition testimony on time spent aboard the vessel, the court later granted summary judgment for CleanBlast on seaman status and maintenance-and-cure.
- Central factual dispute: whether Baldwin spent a substantial portion of his time in service of a vessel (CleanBlast contended ~28.65% aboard; Baldwin’s account was slightly higher and described work, living, equipment storage/maintenance, and standby aboard the vessel).
- The parties disputed application of Chandris’s ~30% “rule of thumb” for the temporal/prong of seaman status; CleanBlast urged that <30% precludes seaman status as a matter of law, while Baldwin argued the vessel-dependent nature of the work and onboard duties support seaman status.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Baldwin is a Jones Act seaman (substantial connection in duration and nature) | Baldwin: vessel-dependent assignment, repeated week-long periods aboard, performed work/housekeeping/equipment maintenance and sometimes supervisory duties aboard the Brody Paul — fact question supports seaman status | CleanBlast: Baldwin spent less than ~30% of time in service of the vessel; majority of work was platform-based and he performed no vessel operations — thus not a seaman as a matter of law | Reversed trial court. Genuine issues of material fact remain; <30% is a guideline, not dispositive, and other facts could support seaman status; remanded for further proceedings |
| Whether trial court properly granted summary judgment after supplementing evidence / whether court improperly weighed evidence | Baldwin: trial court improperly weighed evidence and granted judgment after previously denying summary judgment without presenting meaningful new evidence | CleanBlast: supplemental deposition clarified time split; justified renewed motion and summary judgment | Court found genuine factual disputes existed and that credibility/time questions should go to factfinder; trial court erred in entering summary judgment on seaman status |
Key Cases Cited
- Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 347 (establishes two-part seaman test and ~30% temporal "rule of thumb")
- McDermott Int’l, Inc. v. Wilander, 498 U.S. 337 (duties must contribute to vessel function or mission)
- Harbor Tug & Barge Co. v. Papai, 520 U.S. 548 (focus on whether employee’s duties take him to sea; seaman inquiry is mixed law and fact)