Jason Grab v. Boh Brothers Construction Co.
506 F. App'x 271
5th Cir.2013Background
- Kinchen and Abshire, ironworkers on the Boh Brothers/Joint Venture Pontchartrain bridge project, were injured when a crewboat allided with a survey tower while moving on the BIG MAC derrick barge.
- Kinchen and Abshire were land-based workers who traveled daily to the site by crewboat and performed tasks on the BIG MAC to assemble the bridge.
- The district court held Kinchen was a seaman on summary judgment; Abshire was first found not seaman, then found to be seaman after bench trial; jury found fault apportioned 50% to Boh Brothers.
- The court treated the BIG MAC as a vessel in navigation and analyzed whether Kinchen and Abshire’s connections to it were substantial in duration and nature.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding both men were seamen under the Jones Act and reversing/affirming accordingly, with damages allocations sustained.
- Abshire’s injuries included extensive permanent disability and substantial future medical costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kinchen is a seaman under Chandris. | Kinchen’s duties contributed to the BIG MAC’s mission and he spent substantial time aboard. | Kinchen’s role is land-based; limited exposure to maritime perils. | Kinchen is a seaman; substantial duration and nature of vessel connection. |
| Whether Abshire is a seaman under Chandris. | Abshire would spend at least 30% of time aboard the BIG MAC and assist in its mission. | Abshire’s time aboard was not substantial; disputed percentages. | Abshire is a seaman; connection substantial in duration and nature. |
| Whether the Joint Venture’s maintenance of the survey tower caused the allision. | Maintenance/structure contributed to accident; the tower’s characteristics and permits matter. | Accident was caused by tires obstructing Kinchen’s view, not tower maintenance or markings. | Tower maintenance not a cause; tires obstructing pilot view chiefly responsible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 347 (1995) (defines two-prong seaman test; substantial connection required)
- In re Endeavor Marine Inc., 234 F.3d 287 (5th Cir. 2000) (seaman status for crane operator on a barge where duties center on vessel operations)
- Becker v. Tidewater, Inc., 335 F.3d 376 (5th Cir. 2003) (duration threshold for substantial vessel-related work (30% rule))
- Sw. Marine, Inc. v. Gizoni, 502 U.S. 81 (1991) (emphasizes connection to vessel, not necessarily literal sea travel)
- Stewart v. Dutra Constr. Co., 543 U.S. 481 (2005) (contextualizes admiralty jurisdiction and vessel-related duties)