Kelvin Gold v. Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc., 482 S.W.3d 638

Kelvin Gold, hired November 2012 as an "able-bodied seaman," worked 28-day hitches aboard the Helix 534 during a conversion/repair project that began in August 2012.
Gold developed neck/arm injuries while aboard in December 2012–April 2013, received medical care, and Helix paid maintenance and cure until his employment ended.
Helix purchased the 534-foot drill ship for $85 million, intended to convert it to a well-intervention vessel, and began renovation at Jurong Shipyard; conversion was expected to be complete in months but ultimately took ~20 months and cost ~$115 million.
During Gold’s employment the ship lacked self-propulsion (engines not working), was in dry dock/tied to dockside, but Helix kept a full crew (captain and officers) aboard to familiarize and assist with conversion.
Helix moved for summary judgment arguing the Helix 534 was not a "vessel in navigation" (thus Gold could not be a Jones Act seaman); the trial court granted summary judgment and Gold appealed.
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals reviewed whether Helix conclusively proved the Helix 534 ceased to be a vessel for Jones Act purposes and reversed and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Gold)	Defendant's Argument (Helix)	Held
Whether Gold was a Jones Act seaman because the Helix 534 was a "vessel in navigation"	Gold was hired as seaman, worked aboard during conversion, ship retained physical attributes and crew, and conversion was expected to be short — so vessel status and seaman status are factual questions	Ship lacked self-propulsion and was in dry dock/undergoing extensive conversion, so it was out of navigation and not a vessel when injury occurred	Reversed: summary judgment improper — disputed factual evidence could support vessel status; issue for factfinder

Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 347 (1995) (seaman status is mixed question; vessel and connection tests explained)
Stewart v. Dutra Const. Co., 543 U.S. 481 (2005) (Section 3’s definition of "vessel" governs Jones Act; "in navigation" is relevant to §3 analysis)
McDermott Int’l, Inc. v. Wilander, 498 U.S. 337 (1991) (summary judgment on seaman status only when facts and law permit one conclusion)
Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Fla., 133 S. Ct. 735 (2013) (reasonable-observer, purpose-based test for whether structure is designed for maritime transportation)
Senko v. La Crosse Dredging Corp., 352 U.S. 370 (1957) (crew member covered by Jones Act while ship berthed undergoing lengthy repairs)
The Jefferson, 215 U.S. 130 (1909) (admiralty jurisdiction over vessels undergoing repairs in dry dock)
Cain v. Transocean Offshore USA, Inc., 518 F.3d 295 (5th Cir. 2008) (discusses when a structure under construction becomes a vessel)
West v. United States, 361 U.S. 118 (1959) (repairman injured on totally deactivated ship was not a seaman; contrasts land-based repair situation)