Jones v. Mississippi River Grain Elevator Co., 82-3456
| Decision Date | 23 February 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-3456,82-3456 |
| Citation | 703 F.2d 108 |
| Parties | Calvin JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MISSISSIPPI RIVER GRAIN ELEVATOR COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. Summary Calendar. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Robert N. Clarke, Westwego, La., for plaintiff-appellant.
Bailey & Leininger, Darryl D. Sicarelli, Metairie, La., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Before GEE, RANDALL and TATE, Circuit Judges.
The plaintiff Jones, a bargeman employed by a grain elevator, sues his employer for negligent injury, alleging he was a Jones Act seaman, and alternatively for injury sustained through the unseaworthiness of a barge on which he was working (which was not owned by his employer). On the basis of the factual showing made, the district court granted summary judgment dismissing the suit. The court held that Jones was not a "seaman" and that, as an amphibious worker covered by the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Act, his sole remedy was for compensation under that Act. We affirm.
Based almost entirely upon the deposition of the plaintiff Jones, the undisputed factual showing is:
Jones' duties as a bargeman were to perform certain duties on the barges (owned by various parties, none by his employer) that came to the grain elevator, usually six to seven a day, sometimes more. Jones was never assigned to any particular barge and had never worked on the same barge more than once. He was assigned on a random basis to the variously-owned barges as they came to his employer's grain elevator for unloading. He never ate, slept, or performed any maintenance on any vessels in connection with his employment.
Jones' particular duties, once a barge was in the slip, was to board it to make sure that the "proper procedures" for unloading were carried out. More specifically, he would place the sling of a mooring cable onto a cleat on the barge and then remove the covers from the barge's grain hoppers so that the grain could be removed. These duties took perhaps 15-20 minutes per barge. After the barge was secured to the dock by means of an electric winch situated on the dock, Jones' unloading work on the vessel was completed until after the barge had been entirely unloaded. After it was unloaded, he would reboard the barge in order to replace the covers on the grain hoppers. This also took about 20 minutes.
When Jones was not aboard a barge attaching the cables or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wallace v. Oceaneering Intern.
...verdict on issues of Jones Act seaman status have not used the "complete absence of probative facts" test. Jones v. Mississippi River Grain Elevator Co., 703 F.2d 108 (5th Cir.1983); Savoie v. Otto Candies, 692 F.2d 363 (5th Cir.1982) ("reasonable evidentiary basis"); Abshire v. Seacoast Pr......
-
Legros v. Panther Services Group, Inc.
...Testing & Eng'g Co., 736 F.2d 307 (5th Cir.1984); White v. Valley Line Co., 736 F.2d 304 (5th Cir.1984); Jones v. Mississippi River Grain Elevator Co., 703 F.2d 108 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 856, 104 S.Ct. 175, 78 L.Ed.2d 157 (1983); Fox v. Taylor Diving & Salvage Co., 694 F.2d 134......
-
Pizzitolo v. Electro-Coal Transfer Corp., ELECTRO-COAL
...Northeast Marine Terminal Co. v. Caputo, 432 U.S. 249, 97 S.Ct. 2348, 53 L.Ed.2d 320 (1977).5 See, e.g., Jones v. Mississippi River Grain Elevator Co., 703 F.2d 108 (5th Cir.1983); Stokes v. B.T. Oilfield Services, Inc., 617 F.2d 1205 (5th Cir.1980); Burns v. Anchor-Wate Co., 469 F.2d 730 (......
-
Yelverton v. Mobile Laboratories, Inc.
...Bouvier v. Krenz, 702 F.2d 89 (5th Cir.1983) (comparing and contrasting cases). The defendant's reliance on Jones v. Mississippi River Grain Elevator Co., 703 F.2d 108 (5th Cir.1983), is misplaced. The plaintiff, Jones, was a bargeman employed by a grain elevator, whose duties were to ensur......