In this suit brought under the Jones Act (46 U.S.C. § 688) and the general maritime law, the sole question for decision is whether plaintiff, an offshore oil field worker, was a member of the crew of a vessel, the ST 65, at the time he was allegedly injured in an accident. The district judge granted defendant’s *75 motion for a summary judgment оn the status issue and dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction. 1 We affirm.
Plaintiff Curtis E. Owens brought this suit against Diamond M Drilling Company for injuries alleged to have been sustained while in the employ of defendant in an accident on January 3, 1972. Claimant was employed several months prior thereto, during October 1971, though he had been employed on prior occasions by Diamond M. He was employed as a member of a drilling crew on Diamond M’s Rig No. 55 as a motorman, and was stationed aboard the defendant’s tender, the ST 65, a support vessel to the drilling activity. The defendant’s drilling rig was located on. a stationary drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico on the Outer Continental Shelf off the Louisiana coast. The platform was owned by Texaco and Diamond M was drilling a well for it at the time. The drilling rig on the platform and the tender ST 65 were owned by Diamond M. Plaintiff alleges that while so employed as a motorman, аnd while physically present on the drilling rig situated on the platform, he was struck on the head by a falling board and sustained injuries.
Diamond M had two drilling crews and one roustabout crew, all of whom lived, ate and slept aboard the tender, the ST 65. The drilling crews worked 12-hour shifts in 7-day “hitches,” and their work was prinсipally on the platform where the rig was situated. The roustabout crew was the crew for the tender and responsible for keeping the tеnder up and repairing it when it needed repairs. This crew was also in charge of unloading supplies from work boats and assisted in lifting supplies from the tender to the adjacent Texaco platform. The tender was not moored to the fixed platform but was secured with numerous anchors and access was had by a device known as the widowmaker which was let down from the drilling platform onto the deck of the tender. Plaintiff’s рrincipal duty as motorman required that he take care of the diesel engines which powered the rotary and draw works of the drilling rig, which were situated on the platform. There were other miscellaneous duties which he performed occasionally on the tender. On infrequent оccasions, in rough weather, the tender broke loose from its anchor chains and pulled away from the Texaco platform. If plaintiff happened to be working at the time on the platform he remained there until the tender was returned. However, if he happened to be aboard the tender he was given some miscellaneous duties such as chipping, painting, washing, cleaning up and tying down supplies until the tender returned. He occasionally left the drilling platform to fetch tools and supplies situated on the tender. Sometimes he assisted in mixing mud on the tеnder though that duty was primarily the responsibility of the pump man assisted by the roustabouts.
In denying seaman’s status to plaintiff the district judge in detailed, written reаsons held that “plaintiff’s work activities on board the ST 65 were irregular and fortuitous in nature.” He found that claimant’s activities on the vessel were “minimal in nature and in no way justify his contention that he served as a member of the crew of the tender.” He found that Owens did not perform a significant part of his work aboard the tender, and “certainly performed no work aboard the ship with any degree of regularity and continuity.”
We think the district judge’s ruling wаs correct. Plaintiff’s principal duties as a motorman on Diamond M’s Rig No. 55 were to take care of the diesel engines situated on Texаco’s fixed stationary platform. Here he was allegedly injured. His' attempt to establish
*76
seaman’s status on the basis of a miscellany of incidental and occasional duties aboard the drilling tender ST 65 is unconvincing. Though stationed aboard the ST 65 for living purposes and some incidental misсellaneous duties, his employment was essentially that of a motorman on the Diamond M’s Rig No. 55 situated on the fixed platform. It cannot properly be said that he was permanently assigned to the tender when in fact he was assigned to the drilling rig on the platform.
See
Offshore Company v. Robison, 5 Cir., 1959,
Plaintiff contends that this case was inappropriate for determination by summary judgment though he concedes that in a proper case summary disposition is proper. The district judge had before him lengthy depositions of the driller, derrick man, pump man, a petroleum engineer, and plaintiff himself, in which every facet of plaintiff’s employment was fully explored. All information pertaining to plaintiff’s stаtus was before the court and was undisputed for purposes of the motion. This was accordingly a proper case for summary judgment for wе cannot say with reason that the conclusion may be drawn that claimant was a member of a crew of a vessel so as to present a jury question.
See
Offshore Company v. Ro-bison,
supra
at 780. The issue of status is not necessarily a question for the jury in every ease. Producers Drilling Com-pány v. Gray, 5 Cir., 1966,
The district judge held that none of the miscellany of tasks performed on the tender was done on a regular basis and that plaintiff did not satisfy the requirements of our recent hоlding in Keener. This holding was not erroneous.
Affirmed.
Notes
. Defendant contended that plaintiff’s sole remedy was under the Longshoremen’s & Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (33 U. S.C. § 901 et seq.), as applied by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. § 1333(c)).