Frazier v. Core Indus. Inc

Decision Date04 December 2009
Docket Number1060016.
Citation39 So.3d 140
PartiesWilson Lamar FRAZIERv.CORE INDUSTRIES, INC.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Bryan G. Duhé, Mobile, for appellant.

Brian P. McCarthy, W. Craig Hamilton, and Karen Tucker Luce of McDowell, Knight, Roedder & Sledge, L.L.C., Mobile, for appellee.

MURDOCK, Justice.

This case involves claims by Wilson Lamar Frazier against Core Industries, Inc. (“Core”), under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 688,1 and also entails consideration of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (“LHWCA”), 33 U.S.C. § 901 et seq.2 Frazier appeals from a summary judgment entered by the Mobile Circuit Court in favor of Core. We affirm.

I. Facts and Procedural History

The trial court made the following factual findings, which Frazier does not dispute:

“1. Core is in the business of offloading or unloading materials and equipment from barges and ships to land. [Frazier] began working for Core in late-2003, early-2004. [Frazier] testified that he was hired directly by Morgan Myles and John Watson, employees of Core. [Frazier] also claims that he was an employee of Pinnacle Management Services (‘Pinnacle’). The records on file indicate that Core leased the services of [Frazier] from Pinnacle and that [Frazier] received his paycheck from Pinnacle. Core hired [Frazier] to work as a welder and paid him skilled welder's pay, which was considerably higher than what Core paid the crews that regularly worked in its offloading operation.
“2. [Frazier's] first job for Core was [p]utting a tail on a barge’ by welding two sections of a barge together. The barge that [Frazier] was working on was ‘docked up to the side of the dock’ in the Theodore Industrial Canal. The barge was anchored so it would not shift or move in the water. [Frazier] worked on this project for six to eight weeks.
“3. During the barge construction project, [Frazier] would go home every night after work and would come back in the morning. [Frazier] did not eat or sleep on the barge. The barge did not have a bathroom or living quarters, it was ‘just a plain barge.’ [Frazier] could get on and off the barge simply by using a walkway that connected the barge to the dock. The barge did not have an engine, navigational equipment, or any means of propulsion.
“4. [Frazier] claims that while he was working on this barge, he slipped while carrying a piece of steel onto the barge. [Frazier] alleges that he hurt his back when he slipped and fell on the barge. [Frazier] did not seek medical treatment following the accident and continued to work for Core.
“5. After the barge construction project, [Frazier's] next project for Core was to repair a crane that had ‘rusted out.’ This repair job was done on land. During this same time frame, [Frazier] also helped Core install certain equipment, including a conveyor, on the barge that he had helped build. When he was installing the conveyor, the barge was ‘spudded down and tied [to the dock].’ [3] During this time, [Frazier] was still working during the day and returning to his house every night.
“6. [Frazier's] next job for Core was building a hopper.[4] [Frazier] helped build the hopper on Core's dock in Theodore, which is ‘on land.’ This project took approximately a month and a half. [Frazier] then built a new set of spuds for the barge that he had worked on when he first started with Core. This project was also done on land. It took [Frazier] approximately three weeks to complete the spuds.
“7. [Frazier's] next job for Core was welding new legs on a hopper, which was also done on land. [Frazier] claims that he suffered a second accident while he was welding the legs on the hopper. [Frazier] claims that he had finished with his weld and was looking for a chipping hammer when he accidentally stepped off the end of a scaffold board and fell to the ground. [Frazier] continued working that day and did not seek medical attention as a result of the accident. [Frazier] claims that he injured his back and leg in this accident.

“8. [Frazier's] next job for Core was changing pipes, hoses, and hydraulic lines on a crane that was on a barge. The barge was anchored at Core's Saraland facility. This job took four or five days.

“9. After working on the crane, [Frazier] next built ramps that would allow dump trucks to pull up to the barges for ease of loading. [Frazier] built the ramps in Core's mechanic shop in Saraland. [Frazier] spent three weeks building the ramps.
“10. [Frazier] claims that while he was building the ramps, he had to help shift one barge down the bank at Core's facility in Saraland. [Frazier] testified that Core employees used a crane to move the barge and he helped secure the barge when it was moved to the proper position. The barge that was moved did not have an engine or any form of propulsion, did not have rudders or keels, and did not have navigational lights.
“11. [Frazier] ordinarily worked from 6:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. for Core, with an hour for lunch. [Frazier] did not ordinarily take his meals on a boat and would return to his home every night after work.
“12. While [Frazier] spent some time on barges for Core doing welding tasks such as repairing ramps or fixing hoppers, he was never on a barge when it was being pushed by a towboat and was only occasionally on barges when they were moved with cranes. The farthest distance [Frazier] ever traveled when a barge was being moved by a crane was around 500 yards, which took approximately an hour to move.[5]
“13. While [Frazier] testified that he did some ‘deckhand’ work for Core, he defined a deckhand as a ‘laborer.’ As a laborer, [Frazier] said he would ‘run a shovel,’ grease a crane, or ‘whatever needs to be done.’ Even when [Frazier] was performing ‘deckhand’ duties (as he described them), he was arriving at the job site in the morning and returning to his home at night. [Frazier] never rode on a barge out of town and testified that the barges he worked on were not designed for navigation, they were work platforms.

“14. On one occasion, [Frazier] had to repair the conveyor on a barge that was in Destin. To do this, he loaded his own truck with equipment and drove to Destin. He did not spend the night on the barge. When [Frazier] was working on equipment on a barge that was in an offloading operation, the barge would ordinarily be anchored down with the spuds in the down position, and the barge would also be moored or tied to the dock.

“15. [Frazier] does not hold any maritime licenses. [Frazier] has never worked as a captain or a pilot, and has never worked as a deckhand on a boat in navigation. [Frazier] has never received any navigational training or man-overboard training. [Frazier] has never worked on barge that has been operated by some kind of propulsion, other than a crane moving a barge down the shoreline. Other than the barge that he built when he first started working for Core, [Frazier] was not assigned to any one barge.
“16. [Frazier] would normally report to work at Core's mechanic shop in Saraland. [Frazier] carried some of his own equipment when he worked for Core, which included hand tools, hammers, chisels, safety glasses, a welding hood, burning goggles, gloves, wrenches, and plyers [sic]. Core furnished [Frazier] with a welding machine, welding rods, and a torch and gas.
“17. [Frazier] claims that he had a third accident while working for Core when he was in Gulf Shores helping a co-worker change out a bucket on a crane. Before changing out the bucket, [Frazier] was helping the co-worker, who was operating the crane, put the spuds on the barge into the down position. [Frazier] said that when he was pulling on a rope to get the barge into position to drop the spuds, he slipped and hurt his back.[6] After the spuds were put into place, [Frazier] and the co-worker changed out the buckets on land. [Frazier] said he was on the barge for about 35 minutes.
“18. [Frazier's] work consisted primarily of barge repair and construction and related welding services. [Frazier] testified that in addition to barge construction and repair, there were occasions where he had to maneuver and moor barges. [Frazier] also testified that in his estimation, he spent approximately sixty-five percent of his time working on barges.

“19. [Frazier] claims that he suffered three successive injuries while working for Core, two of which occurred while he was working on or around barges. [Frazier] filed a Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (hereinafter ‘LHWCA’ or ‘longshore’) claim against Pinnacle Management Services relating to the same three accidents that are at issue in this case. [Frazier] recently settled his longshore claim against Pinnacle and is now receiving longshore benefits from Pinnacle.” 7 The third “accident” referred to in the trial court's factual findings occurred in March 2005.

In June 2005, Frazier filed a four-count complaint against Core. In count one, styled “Negligence,” Frazier alleged that he was “an able bodied seaman” and that he had been

“injured on or about March 11, 2005, when he attempted to secure and dock by hand a barge to which he had been assigned. While pulling on a dock rope, [Frazier] slipped and fell. As a result of the negligence of [Core] and/or the unseaworthiness of the vessel in question, [Frazier] was caused to suffer injuries and damage[ ] to his back.”

Frazier alleged that he suffered damage in excess of $50,000 as a result of the slip and fall, including lost wages, medical expenses, pain and suffering, and mental anguish.

In count two, Frazier alleged that the foregoing allegations entitled him to recover under the “savings to suitors clause” of the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 688(a), which at all relevant times stated:

“Any seaman who shall suffer personal injury in the course of his employment may, at his election, maintain an action for damages at law, with the right of trial by jury, and in such action all statutes of the United States modifying or extending the common-law right or remedy in
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • In re Bridge Constr. Servs. of Fla., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 9 d6 Agosto d6 2014
    ...and the accomplishment of their mission and that he had a sufficient connection with the vessels.Tutor Perini cites Frazier v. Core Indus., Inc., 39 So.3d 140 (Ala.2009), in which the court found that a land-based worker who only spent time on the barge “when the barge was being moved short......
  • Groton Pac. Carriers, Inc. v. Jackson
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 14 d5 Fevereiro d5 2014
    ...tests for seaman status.” Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 347, 356, 115 S.Ct. 2172, 132 L.Ed.2d 314 (1995). In Frazier v. Core Industries, Inc., 39 So.3d 140 (2009), we detailed the federal statutory history and caselaw giving rise to the Supreme Court's current two-pronged test to deter......
  • Daniels v. Wiley
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 26 d5 Junho d5 2020
    ...issue in her brief to this Court. Therefore, she has waived any challenge to the summary judgment in this regard. Frazier v. Core Indus., Inc., 39 So. 3d 140, 158 (Ala. 2009) (holding that, by failing to make a specific argument with regard to wantonness claim, appellant waived any challeng......
  • Smith v. Marine Terminals Of Ark. Inc
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas
    • 17 d3 Novembro d3 2010
    ... ... showing that there is a genuine issuefor trial.' " Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., ... 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S. Ct. 1348, 1356, 89 L. Ed. 2d 538 ... (same); Schultz v. Louisiana Dock Co., 94 F. Supp. 2d 746, 750 (E.D. La. 2000); Frazier v. Core ... Industries, Inc., 39 So. 3d 140, 156-57 (Ala. Sup. Ct. 2009); Richard v. Mike Hooks, ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT