Lundy v. Litton Systems, Inc.
| Decision Date | 20 August 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-1061,79-1061 |
| Citation | 624 F.2d 590 |
| Parties | Alvin L. LUNDY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LITTON SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Bobby G. O'Barr, Biloxi, Miss., for plaintiff-appellant.
Karl Wiesenburg, French Caldwell, Pascagoula, Miss., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.
Before GOLDBERG, TATE, and SAM D. JOHNSON, Circuit Judges.
On July 1, 1976, plaintiff-appellant, Alvin L. Lundy, who is a meter calibrator, was working on the USS Hewitt, DD-966, when he fell through an escape hatch which had been left open by one of the ship's crew. At the time of the accident, the USS Hewitt, undergoing construction and preparations for sea trials, was 97% complete and moored in an outfitting dock. To recover for his injuries, appellant brought suit against his employer, Litton Systems, Inc., defendant-appellee, which was also owner of the ship. Appellant claimed entitlement to recovery under the doctrine of seaworthiness, the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 688, and the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA), 33 U.S.C. § 905(b). He appeals from the district court's dismissal of his claims upon appellee's motion for summary judgment. Because appellant had abandoned his claims brought under the doctrine of seaworthiness and the Jones Act, we need only determine whether he has a claim under 33 U.S.C. § 905(b). 1 We find that he does, and, accordingly, we reverse.
The district court held that an incomplete ship was not a vessel for purposes of section 905(b). We disagree.
The definitional section of the LHWCA provides that "(t)he term 'vessel' means any vessel upon which or in connection with which a person entitled to benefits under this chapter suffers injury or death arising out of or in the course of his employment . . . ." 33 U.S.C.A. § 902(21)(West 1978). Persons entitled to benefits under the LHWCA are "employees." See id. § 903(a). "The term 'employee' means any person engaged in maritime employment, including any longshoreman or other person engaged in longshoring operations, and any harborworker including a ship repairman, shipbuilder, and shipbreaker . . . ." Id. § 902(3). we have previously held that "(s)hipbuilders who do the initial work to construct a vessel for launching are . . . just as engaged in shipbuilding as those who are completing the task after something in finished which can be called a ship." Ingalls Shipbuilding Corp., Division of Litton Systems, Inc. v. Morgan, 551 F.2d 61 (5th Cir. 1977). Thus, incomplete ships upon which 33 U.S.C. § 902(3) employees are working at a site which the coverage of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 903, are vessels within the meaning of 33 U.S.C. § 902(21). The USS Hewitt was thus moored to the statute.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
1 33 U.S.C.A. § 905(b)(West 1978) provides the following:
In the event of injury to a person covered under this chapter...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hall v. Hvide Hull No. 3
...seq. (hereinafter, "Longshoremen's Act"). The district court said "no". We reverse, on the basis of our decision in Lundy v. Litton Systems, Inc., 624 F.2d 590 (5th Cir.1980), reh. denied, 629 F.2d 1349, cert. denied, 450 U.S. 913, 101 S.Ct. 1353, 67 L.Ed.2d 337 (1981). The panel agrees tha......
-
Drake v. Raymark Industries, Inc.
...overlooked the Executive Jet nexus test in determining whether a tort was cognizable under Sec. 905(b). These are Lundy v. Litton Systems, Inc., 624 F.2d 590 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 913, 101 S.Ct. 1353, 67 L.Ed.2d 337 (1981), 9 McCarthy v. The Bark Peking, 716 F.2d 130 (2d Ci......
-
Ozzello v. Peterson Builders, Inc.
...104 S.Ct. 1439, 79 L.Ed.2d 760 (1984); Burks v. American River Transportation Company, 679 F.2d 69 (5th Cir.1982); Lundy v. Litton Systems, Inc., 624 F.2d 590 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 913, 101 S.Ct. 1353, 67 L.Ed.2d 337 (1981). The Hall court rejected earlier decisions holding......
-
Molett v. Penrod Drilling Co.
...maritime jurisdiction over claims arising from injuries sustained on vessels under construction. Relying on Lundy v. Litton Systems, Inc., 624 F.2d 590, (5th Cir.1980), reh'g denied, 629 F.2d 1349, cert. denied, 450 U.S. 913, 101 S.Ct. 1353, 67 L.Ed.2d 337 (1981) and legislative history, th......