Mary E. Barger, Cross-Appellant v. Petroleum Helicopters, Inc., Cross-Appellee

(West 761-768 Supp. U.S.C.A. 1975 & §§ BROWN, Before RUBIN and REAV- Smith, 1982) (DOHSA). at 1108- 684 F.2d LEY, Judges. Circuit Smith oc- 12. The involved accident Shelf, outer but curred on the RUBIN, Judge: ALVIN B. Circuit 4(a) of the we decided that § This case raises many of the issues we 1333(a) (Supp. 1980), making IV U.S.C. § Smith v. Pan Air Corp., decided law federal applicable surrogate state We, (5th Cir.1982). therefore, address occurring plat- on fixed law accidents in detail one issue that distinguishes forms, supersede does not DOHSA so as against Helicopter judge right appeal. 1. Suit was filed Bell also found Bell district Textron, Textron, liability apportioned a division of the manu- to Bell also liable and 20% helicopter. plaintiff Helicopters, F.Supp. facturer of the Bell and the to Petroleum 80% agreed that, judgment, Thus, relating plaintiffs’ Bell if Bell were cast no issues $225,000 pay plaintiff against and waive Bell us. are before claims jurisdiction admiralty fore, to oust over the that this exclusion from LHWCA cov- claim.2 plaintiff’s erage does not Barger. extend to wrongful death claim in case, Smith involved several claims. Jor Smith, unlike the Kolb claim in is asserted dan, whose claim was asserted his bene employer, the decedent’s (Smith), was ficiary flying plane. Kolb 4(b) of Helicopters. Section the OCSLA were both Barger piloting helicopters. provides, death of respect to ... “[w]ith aircraft, Barger’s, like Jordan’s had attach resulting any from occur- employee injury enabling it to land ments on and take off ring operations as the result of conducted from water. Kolb’s helicopter apparently on the pur- outer Continental Shelf for the had no such attachment. But each of these for, pose exploring developing, removing, aircraft, whether or not fitted with pon or transporting ... the natural resources toons, designed primarily fly to ... of the and seabed of the subsoil outer air not to travel through the on water. The Shelf, compensation shall be colleague respected apparent dissent of our payable provisions under the of the Long- ly pontoons assumes that a sans shoremen’s and Compen- Harbor Workers’ purpose, used to transport for the selfrsame (West sation Act 901-950 U.S.C.A. §§ [33 personnel platforms, to and from offshore Supp.1982) (LHWCA)].” 1978 & plane a a nor a helicop not vessel. Neither 133(b).3 933(i) C.A. § Section undergoes ter a miraculous transformation provides compensation LHWCA that this pontoons from aircraft vessel when into are injured exclusive of an employ- it, pilots by attached to and their do not this against ee his employer. U.S.C.A. a act become members of “vessel’s” crew. Therefore, 933(i). Barger if § covered amphibian adaptations The helicopter’s 1333(b), by 43 U.S.C. there can § be no solely permit to it to designed were take off recovery against employer gener- his under and to from and land on water taxi on juris- al if admiralty maritime law. Even position itself for loading water in order Barger’s diction existed because death re- unloading with a view to travel sulted from an aircraft crash on the high air. It was an through the aircraft seas, Smith, see 684 F.2d at recovery of the water for a might use the surface 933(i) would be barred and the claim § time to facilitate airborne commerce. An would fail on the merits. not become airplane does an automobile be Barger plaintiffs argue that cause it has wheels attached and can taxi seaman, Barger was a Jones Act and there on The wheels no more runways. change fore coverage excluded from under 43 pontoons aircraft into land vehicles than 1333(b). provides U.S.C. That section § Just as ves change aircraft into vessels. “employee” term does not include quality sel not lose its nautical merely does “a master or member of a crew of any is anchored for a time to serve as 1333(b)(1). vessel.” U.S.C. For the § an aircraft drilling platform, does not Smith, same reasons discussed in adapted it is become a vessel because 1112-14, at we conclude that a helicopter periods taxi on the water for brief float and “vessel,” and, cannot be considered a there- perform in order incidental functions Smith, (1) “employee” 2. See 684 F.2d at 1109-11. For similar term does not include reasons, Helicopters’ we held that Petroleum any vessel master member of a crew of property damage arising claim from the same accident was likewise not ousted from “employer” (2) employ- means an the term admiralty jurisdiction by the OCSLA. See id. employed employees er of whose are at 1112. for, developing, removing, [exploring transporting by pipeline the natural re- 3. The section continues: subsoil and seabed of sources ... of the purposes For the of the extension of the Shelf]. the outer Continental Longshoremen’s provisions of the 1333(b) (West Supp.1982).. and Har- § 43 U.S.C.A. Compensation bor Workers’ Act under section— With primary respect in its mission. The Jones to the second condition for aid to aid those who face the designed Act was coverage, the term “employer” OCSLA sea, perils of the air. hazards of the employer any employ- “an whose means Barger not meet from a collision did [operations are conducted employed ees or the action waves but as a sea pur- Shelf for the on the outer Continental Symposi- disaster. result of an See for, developing, removing, pose of exploring um, Under the Jones Aircraft as Vessels ... the natural resources Law, 22 Act Maritime S.Tex. and General ... of the outer Continental Shelf].” L.J. 600-03 1333(b)(2). Unlike employer determined, Stansbury, Barger’s employer, It remains be then, Barger’s whether the itself in min- Helicopters, was not is covered This employer However, OCSLA. operations. helicopter trans- eral depends whether death was equipment men and portation of conducted on the operations “result of rigs offshore and back mainland to the purpose outer for the of Continental Shelf in “developing” an role plays important for, developing, exploring removing, transportation is an “operation This Shelf. ... the natural transporting resources . . . purpose conducted ... for of” natural Shelf,” (2) of the and outer Continental development. Helicopter resource pilots in- employer, Petroleum Hel Barger’s whether perform the same operations volved in these icopters, the in “employer” within was respect develop- function resource with 1333(b)(2). tendment of 43 U.S.C. § directly by pro- a employed ment whether The first of these conditions clearly is contractor, separate and by ducer or Aircraft, met. Stansbury In v. Sikorski 681 differently on the should not be treated Cir.1982), a Chevron Oil Com- immediate employer basis of their is. who pany killed employee was when the Chev- inject another element of We decline to which he was a ron-owned already area beset inconsistency into an passenger high on the seas over the crashed of incongruous share more than its fair act compensation Shelf. We held that results.4 provided Stansbury’s remedy against sole Aside the fact this case in- Chevron, his Stansbury employer, employer employee, volves an and only had work done under his inspecting been kind of claim to which the compensation supervision rig on a fixed located on there is another applies, important rig’s opera- “His work furthered the Shelf. distinction between claim and the tions regular and was in the course of the The OCSLA compensation Smith. on the operations extractive But [Shelf]. coverage provision already quoted expan- is for he would not have operations, those every injury sive. extends or death death, helicopter. been His there- operations as a result of “occurring . .. for fore, ‘as a result of operations’ occurred for, purpose exploring developing, required by (em- the OCSLA.” Id. at 951 removing, . .. natural re- phasis added). Barger likewise would not 1333(b). sources.” 43 The state U.S.C.A. § have killed in a crash in the been clause, however, is law extension considera- Gulf Mexico “but for” the fact that he narrower, for bly providing only appli- transport was eleven workers employed to “the cation law to subsoil and to a on the Shelf. His of state platform fixed work Shelf, and exploration mineral seabed develop- furthered and of the outer ment and was in fixed regular activities structures erect- artificial islands activities. 1333(a). course of such Thus 43 U.S.C. § ed thereon.” Robertson, Injuries rational, fair, consistent, generally internally 4. See to Marine safety Simpli- acceptably productive A Plea Radical incentives. Workers: fication, (“Since chaos.”) (footnote omit- 55 Tex.L.Rev. has been result offshore, industry legal system ted). the oil went body injury struggled produce has law law ters, state is made applicable workers was engaged operations in such in certain not to all employees areas and performing essential service trans- development, mineral while the porting equipment men from the main- compensation reaches any employee statute land to the offshore rigs. injured exploiting killed while the Shelf’s time, same At the I agree case is not resources. by the controlled local of the adjacent law We, therefore, that Barger’s hold exclu- (Louisiana) as state “surrogate” federal law remedy against sive his employer was under LHWCA compensation.5 district 1333(a)(2)(A). accompanying text See n. judgment court’s is REVERSED and the Rodrigue 1109. Aetna case REMANDED further proceed- Casualty Surety & not with ings opinion. inconsistent 1835, 23 (1969).2 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. I also agree that the Kolb claim the third BROWN, JOHN R. Circuit Judge, dis- party in for the Smith a helicopter senting: off pilot in waters the Outer Continental holding1 To the dual was a Shelf maritime claim within jur- not a “vessel” Barger, pilot, its isdiction admiralty. F.2d 1111- “seaman”, I must respectfully dissent. narrow point difference, To I wish embrace wholeheartedly And I to make clear the areas extensive in which I that the suit Court’s conclusion heli- am full agreement Judge with Rubin’s in the of copter owner Kolb claim Smith for scholarly doubt, analysis. Without a 43 the helicopter loss of a was within admiral- 1333(b) U.S.C. of the Outer § Continental All ty jurisdiction. Id. at 1112. of this (OCSLA) brings play Shelf Lands Act into the of Barger that for death the means 933(i) of Longshoremen’s the and Harbor § Act is Longshoremen’s the exclusive reme- Compensation Act (LHWCA) Workers’ the Petroleum dy against employer, Heli- prescribes the exclusive for “. unless he was .. a copters, master injury by quite and death the Act. cases I ” the crew of vessel member of .... [a] was agree Barger’s that death the “result 1333(b)(1). 43 U.S.C. § of conducted on the operations Outer Conti- purpose narrow, nental Shelf for of exploring signifi- the This dramatizes the but for, removing, developing, cant, in our difference views. The Court ... the natural ... (i) resources having party Outer held Kolb third ...”, 1333(b), 43 Shelf U.S.C. action the § that claim under DOHSA was and that his employer, Helicop- admiralty within the was so and it maritime that, district Cir.1982). necessity, 5. The court held in the alternative Of this dissent attacks LHWCA, Barger by if even concurring spe- were covered the of that determination. Instead 905(b) gives section act em- binding that covered cially on me of a decision until right bring ployee against banc, action by dissenting, I en am altered Court Citing negligence. “vessel owner” for Smith v. filing I since of this dissent will seek with Fred, Captain (5th Cir.1977), M/V F.2d 119 546 banc, 35, formally rehearing en F.R.A.P. Rule the court noted that “circumstances inevitably bring case which will into instant employer vessel owner and are the question the correctness of the Smith decision. entity preclude same does such an action.” However, 905(b) simply section is irrelevant states: 2. The Court unless is a here “vessel.” We have the workers con- Unlike both Monk and supra concluded that it is not. See text Rodrigue, helicopter pilot sidered was Smith, Therefore, 684 F.2d at 1112-13. work- function, engaged maritime-type in a trans- compensation ers’ sole reme- remains persons porting over the seas. dy against employer. his hold, therefore, admiralty jurisdic- We nonemployer tion over Kolb’s claim based, effect, dual determination was 1. The 1333(a) parties is not ousted section third holding contemporaneous almost of the OCSLA. in Smith Air Court to the Smith claim v. Pan omitted). (note at 1111-12 684 F.2d Corporation, 1102, 1112, 684 F.2d n. 39 342 beyond adjacent as to be the reach of surro- held an oil field “roustabout” who did not law, 1333(a)(2)(A); 43 gate having to, by, know how or what was meant (ii) in the claim the held owner’s “hand, steer,” ability to reef and to be a loss of the injuries Act seaman Jones received function, maritime-type was “in a floating rig while a submersible was made sea”, transporting persons over the bay by jack-up fast to the bottom of the 1111, “being because the aircraft was legs raising the deck of the drilling barge place used in of a vessel to ferry personnel way above the level of the water. At the supplies to and from offshore drilling injury drilling platform time of the was structures, ...” and this bore “.. . the type aground. not afloat. It was hard The significant relationship to traditional drilling barge could not move. activity necessary .. . to invoke past— relation had to the sea was its ”, 1112, admiralty jurisdiction ... Id. at or, when it was towed to a new location — suddenly admiralty case loses its character future —when it again its would be towed interposition Longshoremen’s to another location. Act. Equally spectacular was the decision in Congress It is no answer that this is what Co., 879, v. Texas Gianfala U.S. prescribed provides has since the LHWCA 141, (1955). 100 L.Ed. 775 and his Gianfala itself that seamen are excluded. heli- slept crew members ashore in an oilfield copter doing is what a vessel would ordinar- camp drilling barge and worked aboard a ily transport persons property do— resting which was on the bottom the bay and from mainland and the offshore injury. at the time of the held The.Court pilot doing structure. The the mas- what scope Gianfala to be a seaman within the do, ter and crew of a vessel namely, spectacular the Jones Act. Even more operate activity the craft. Each is mari- Raymond Grimes v. Concrete Pile time and maritime related. Each meets 'the 687, U.S. S.Ct. L.Ed.2d principles exclusions and set forth in Execu- in which the contractor building Aviation, Cleveland, tive Jet Inc. v. City of “Texas tower” radar station for location in U.S. S.Ct. 34 L.Ed.2d 454 permanently the North Atlantic to be af- Injury loss to each in the OCSLA fixed the floor of the ocean. After the admiralty. waters is within the The factor site, tower was towed to its offshore Grimes which makes each within the admiralty only piledriving work. He did drowned purpose the function and of the use of the ring when he fell out of a life used to carry lacking craft. All that is is a “vessel” in him to tug Supreme from a the tower. The thing usual traditional sense of a which reversed the First and Court Circuit held can carry persons float on or water to “petitioner’s presented that the evidence an things place from one to another. evidentiary jury’s finding basis for a wheth- physical But the normal characteristics to petitioner er or not the was a member of object constitute an a “vessel” have never the crew of vessel” to thus circumvent Supreme deterred the or this Court Court coverage equivalent LHWCA under unusual, nontraditional, odd, finding from the Defense Bases Act. Id. at “vessels”, nonmaritime structures to be and at 688. person serving to fulfill the mission of to be such structures seamen under the Courts of Appeals and District Courts

Jones Act. have extended Robison strange to sorts of Judge The classic case is Wisdom’s cele- things to find them to be a “vessel” and the Robison, brated decision in Offshore Co. v. injured person seaman,3 a and the so called (5th Cir.1959). There, 266 F.2d 769 follow- floating drilling submersible barges are in- decisions, we ing significant Supreme Court variably aground, hard incapable of any injured party States, nation whether was Jones Act (9th 3. Nelson v. United 639 F.2d 469 seaman); Drilling Explora- Hicks v. & 1980) (a suppressor, aquatic Ocean Cir. wave barri- Co., Cir.1975) (submersi- (5th tion 512 F.2d 817 protect er erected in the water to boats at the storage facility resting ble oil on the bottom heavy Coast Guard station from waves which plaintiff held to be a vessel and permanently Gulf is affixed to the sea floor held to seaman); Brinegar decedent, v. San Ore Construction piledriver, be a vessel and the was Co., Inc., 1969) (fuel F.Supp. (E.D.Ark. Act); Guidry a seaman within the Jones pontoon capsized Contractors, at time of acci- tank vessel South Louisiana F.2d 447 plaintiff a Jones 1980) (elevated dent held to be a vessel and large dragline Cir. boom of a seaman). vessel; Act jury was a case remanded for determi- movement —maritime or otherwise.4 As a death claims arising the high on seas if the physical, matter operative they fact are flight has the essential maritime just land-bound, nonmaritime as the nexus,” at 1112, Id. the Court eliminating drilling fixed raised platform over which it “if”, concluded: is uncontradicted that none is a vessel. Therefore, both the locality and maritime our of these decisions for case upshot nexus requirements being met, we hold regularly that that the Petroleum Helicopters claim, like operated transportation persons the Kolb claim, may brought be from the mainland and property admiralty. Id. structures, it offshore To the quaere, Court’s Id. at n. that the loss of the maritime activities so the record in this case and the trial court’s of the were a pilot and the death findings factual reflect clearly am- jurisdiction of the maritime tort within the phibious helicopter here come within the of the It is maritime because admiralty. broad, virtually indefinable Robison defini- regularly per- nature of work tion of a special purpose judge craft.5 The transportation persons formed —the found this amphibious helicopter was by the property. positive This is made specially designed and not built take (Kolb’s) pilot’s Court’s treatment off and land on water but also to taxi on emphasized Court that “his claim. The the water. It could move under self-pro- its constantly duties carried him back and pulsion position on the water to itself for high forth seas over the outer above the loading or unloading cargo passen- 684 F.2d at 1111. Dis- Continental Shelf.” gers. He characterized the craft as one relationship of the death regarding designed to function crew as a boat without acknowledged claim to the OCSLA and gigantic industry’s offshore oil DOHSA, separate jurisdiction under operations, see Boudreaux v. Court went on: Workover, Inc., American 680 F.2d 1034 ‘special apart Even from this treatment’ (5th Cir., 1982) (en banc), could func- victims, airplane accorded crash there tion. Indeed this seems have been the admiralty jurisdiction be over would still sole function of helicopter.6 accident, Kolb’s as we show below re- property gard Helicopters’ to Petroleum More than that literally arising same accident. Congressional met the “any definition that See Part IIC infra. capable being artificial contrivance . . . stating Id. Part IIC And after used, as transportation a means of on “logic appears require of Executive Jet water” constitutes a vessel.7 684 F.2d at jurisdiction to non- admiralty extension of 1118, n. 40. drilling barge legion emphasized 4. Submersible cases are must be that a Robison vessel invariably injuries occurring necessarily involve while determination does not or automat- barge ically status, drilling question is fixed the ocean floor mean Jones Act so the floating Daughd injured and not or in movement. See broader than: “Is the worker Jones Drilling rill Dugas v. Diamond M. Act seaman?” See v. Pelican Construc- tion, (5th Co., 1971); Drilling (5th 1973) (not Neill Diamond Cir. v. M. 481 F.2d 773 Cir. Co., (5th 1970); 426 F.2d 487 Cir. Jones Act Producers seaman but entitled to seaman’s Drilling Gray, warranty seaworthiness). v. F.2d 432 of Co. 361 Cir. ; 1966) Harney Building v. William M. Moore Supreme Corp. 6. The Mobil Clary Court in Oil v. Corp., (2d 1966); F.2d 359 649 Cir. v. Higginbotham, 618, 619, 2, 436 U.S. 98 Drilling Co., n. S.Ct. Exploration Ocean 429 2010, 2011, 2, 2, 581, 583, n. 56 F.Supp. (W.D.La.1977); L.Ed.2d n. said 905 McNeese v. An admiralty juris- District “[t]he Court bottomed Corp., F.Supp. (S.D.Miss.1971); Son 334 290 finding diction Inc., on a the McCarty that Contracting v. Services 317 equivalent functional of a crewboat. The rul- F.Supp. (E.D.La.); v. Kerr 629 Robichaux ing challenged has been Industries, Inc., not F.Supp. this Court.” 317 McGee Oil 587 (citation omitted). (W.D.La.1970); Roger Gracey-Hellums v.s (E.D.La. Corp., F.Supp. 1970); 331 1287 Hebert Co., (W.D.La. F.Supp. v. California Oil 280 754 7. Since dealing we directly are usage with the ; 1967) Louisiana, v. of Ledet U.S. Oil 237 of not recently LHWCA but also more (E.D.La.1964); F.Supp. 183 Oliver v. Ocean the 1953 1333(c)(1) 43 U.S.C. § Co., Drilling Exploration F.Supp. 222 843 September & 18, 1978, amended 43 U.S.C. (W.D.La. 1963); v. 1333(b)(1), Guilbeau Falcon Seaboard § explanation, the Court’s 684 F.2d F.Supp. (E.D.La. 1963). 1113, 40, 215 909 at only ignores n. not these historical 344 Act, it when first enacted the Jones text of meaning of full Whatever 1982 and has been ever since than now clear in 1509(a) rather the Court’s 49 Congress 1977 has no doubts. Con- it, 1113, fact that of F.2d at 684 paraphrase to include and all kinds of gress any has means very Congress actions is that in recent “vessel”, aircraft within the term (including seagoing hel- definitely seaplanes included the craft be meaning qualification term with the sole that of the icopters) within the transpor- capable being used of used for major the In- or In the overhaul of “vessel”. waters, or over tation on international Preventing for Col- Regulations ternational were, other clearly which these waters Sea, seq. 1601 et at 33 U.S.C. § lisions jurisdic- the United has 1977 several over which States Congress did (1977), tion. repealed long things. significant provided the Road.” It standing “Rules of “vessel”. note on term One final the President and proclamation by for a were con- we that Robison Court stresses Regula- the International promulgation of purpose structures” “special with cerned (In- for Preventing tions Collisions Sea to and be towed designed float which are Rules).8 ternational despite drilling site water to “across no 1601(1) leaves doubt 33 U.S.C. § 684 for incapacity self-propulsion.” their of aircraft are included seagoing all kinds permanently Wave barriers F.2d at 1113. “vessel”. It states: within term Nelson, floor, the sea affixed to every description of water- ‘vessel’ means 469, dragline, Gui- boom of a the elevated craft, nondisplacement craft including 447, submersible oil dry, F.2d and a being seaplanes, capable used 817, Hicks, facility, storage transportation on as means of used defense the “Texas Tower” radar water.... 687, Grimes, 252, nation, 356 U.S. 78 S.Ct. statutory helicopter comes within A 737, hardly category. fit that L.Ed.2d craft” and “nondisplacement of a definition qualification fits of a craft certainly Ro- fidelity principles Nor does capable being used as a means “used or maritime the flexible require bison water.” As a transportation on Id. sea, go those who down law’s concern “vessel”, a statutorily defined Gaudet, Services, v. see Inc. Sea-Land system up subject the elaborate set also 806, 39 L.Ed.2d U.S. civil penalties. 1608 for in 33 U.S.C. § ships Moragne) (following —whether There, enforcement and com- investigative, ship’s equivalent— today’s version provided, including are prehensive measures the admi- effectuation of should be denied of an of a vessel and an in liability operator heli- which and all other ralty remedy Kolb craft. rem have, be- including copter Barger, pilots, use thing cause the had or could have had Congress Whatever —the —whose gives the purposes for substantial mind the term “vessel” in 1920 regarding Lines, Inc., (plus

facts substantial 1972 amendments States Marine LHWCA) express this con- but also Court’s S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 339 Congress determine what clusion we must Rules, 8. The International see 33 U.S.C. § 1602 about on which meant a matter it could through number 1 thought technological non-ex- have 3(a) discussing example, Rule techno- states that: istence. For (a) Congress logical every descrip- word ‘vessel’ advances made since enacted includes COGSA, craft, tion of including nondisplace- water has stated: Court seaplanes, capable ment craft and used or principal in this case is determine Our task being transportation used as a means of Congress thought what have about a water. subject thought about it never or could which 3(e) Rule states that: thought have about we have and one (e) ‘seaplane’ any The word includes thought never other has nor Court designed to manoeuvre on the thought. water. Technology maritime has created a peculiar Rule 31 reflects seagoing concern with transportation system unlike aircraft: Congress when enacted existence in 1936 impracticable seaplane Where it is (note for a omitted). COGSA. lights shapes exhibit of the characteris- Ltd. v. FOREST and LASH Wirth S/S ACADIA positions prescribed tics or in the 1272, (5th Cir.1976). Barge, F.2d lights Rules of this Part she then, shall exhibit question remains what did Con- shapes closely similar 4(b)(1) characteristics gress mean it enacted in 1953 when position possible, (emphasis sup- as is which cuts the mar- the statute off plied). pilot. Moragne itime for the death characterization of controversy prized America, claim, UNITED is not a vessel.9 STATES of Plaintiff-Appellee, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING Stephen BROWN, Pfeiffer EN BANC Defendant-Appellant. BROWN, Before RUBIN and REAV- No. 82-1011. LEY, Judges. Circuit United Court of Appeals, States PER CURIAM: Fifth Circuit. The Petition for Rehearing DENIED Nov. having the Court polled been at the 30, 1982. Rehearing Denied Dec. request of one of the members of the Court and majority of the Circuit Judges who regular are in active having service not (Rule voted it, in favor of 35 Federal Rules Procedure; of Appellate Local Fifth Circuit 16) Rule the Suggestion for Rehearing En Bane is also DENIED. CLARK, Before Judge, BROWN, Chief GEE, RUBIN, REAVLEY, POLITZ, RAN- DALL, TATE, JOHNSON, WILLIAMS, GARWOOD, JOLLY and HIGGINBOT- HAM, Judges. Circuit BROWN, JOHN R. Circuit Judge, with whom JOHNSON, POLITZ and Circuit

Judges, join, dissenting: For the reasons set forth my dissent to

the panel opinion, I dissent to the failure grant Court to rehearing en banc. TATE, Judge, Circuit dissenting from de-

nial Suggestion Rehearing En Banc:

I join Judge Brown in dissenting from application denial of the for en banc rehearing. Without definitely concluding now I that would reach the conclusions ex- pressed by Judge Brown in his dissent to the panel opinion, I feel they raise concerns import sufficient to warrant

full consideration by the entire Court on this issue of everyday importance to work- servicing

ers our offshore oil industry. ascribing 9. That claims, vessel status to a acki founded on traditional seamen’s legal problems unanswered, work, leaves some longshoremen see never received mainte- (limitation liability, etc.), Sieracki, Shipping Co. v. nance and cure. Seas admiralty’s adaptability. no deterrence L.Ed. Recall, example, the boundless Sier-

Case Details

Case Name: Mary E. Barger, Cross-Appellant v. Petroleum Helicopters, Inc., Cross-Appellee

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Date Published: Jan 13, 1983

Citation: 692 F.2d 337

Docket Number: 81-2262

Court Abbreviation: 5th Cir.