McCarty v. Service Contracting, Inc., Civ. A. No. 69-228.

• Decision Date: 25 September 1970
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 69-228.
• Citation: 317 F. Supp. 629,1971 AMC 90
• Parties: Claiborne McCARTY v. SERVICE CONTRACTING, INC.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana

317 F. Supp. 629

1971 AMC 90

Claiborne McCARTY v. SERVICE CONTRACTING, INC.

Civ. A. No. 69-228.

United States District Court, E. D. Louisiana, Baton Rouge Division.

September 25, 1970.

R. C. Edwins, Edwins, Cave & McKay, Baton Rouge, La., for plaintiff.

Tom F. Phillips, Taylor, Porter, Brooks & Phillips, Baton Rouge, La., for defendant.

WEST, Chief Judge:

Plaintiff, Claiborne McCarty, brings this action seeking damages for injuries which he sustained on January 9, 1969 while working as a derrick hand on board a submersible drilling barge, the SCI Rig No. 1, which was owned and operated by his employer, Service Contracting, Inc., defendant herein. Federal subject matter jurisdiction in this case rests on the Jones Act, Title 46, U.S.C.A., § 688, and General Maritime Law. The threshold questions, therefore, are first, whether or not plaintiff was employed by defendant as a "seaman," and secondly, whether or not he was employed as such on board a "vessel." Gilmore & Black, The Law of Admiralty, § 6-21, p. 282 (1957). The jurisdictional facts being undisputed, the answer to both questions must be in the affirmative.

An invaluable aid in offshore oil exploration, a submersible drilling barge is a unique craft whose specialized purpose is the location and commercial production of oil reserves found beneath the surface of the water. By the very nature of their job these specialized craft must be capable of at least some degree of mobility on navigable waters and there is now simply no question but that such craft are "vessels" within the import of both the Jones Act and General Maritime Law. Gianfala v. Texas Company, 350 U.S. 879, 76 S.Ct. 141, 100 L. Ed. 775 (1955); Marine Drilling Co. v. Autin, 363 F.2d 579 (CA5—1966); Producers Drilling Co. v. Gray, 361 F.2d 432 (CA5—1966); Offshore Co. v. Robison, 266 F.2d 769 (CA5—1959). Since plaintiff, as a derrick hand and member of the drilling crew, was obviously contributing to the oil exploration function of the SCI Rig No. 1, he is, under such circumstances, entitled to be included within the traditional classification of "blue water" seamen, albeit vicariously. See, e. g., Offshore Co. v. Robison, supra; Callendar v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp., 283 F.Supp. 213 (E.D. La.1967); Comment, When Is An Offshore Oilfield Worker A Seaman?, 27 La. L.Rev. 757 (1967). Therefore, if as he alleges, plaintiff was in fact injured due to the negligent operation, or unseaworthy condition, or both, of the SCI Rig No. 1, he too, as a "blue water" seaman, is entitled to the relief afforded him by the Jones Act and General Maritime Law.

A non-jury trial in this case was had before this Court on July 15, 1970 at which time the following facts were elicited: On January 9, 1969, the SCI Rig No. 1 stood some thirty miles off the Louisiana coast at a prospective drilling site in the Gulf of Mexico. At the time plaintiff was injured, the drilling crew was engaged in the process of "tripping" (or inserting) into the well hole a string of 2 7/8 inch drill stem. When going into the hole with drill stem, plaintiff's job as a derrick hand required that he position himself along side a horizontal storage rack located immediately adjacent to and a little below the derrick floor. As the driller used a device called a "block" to lower each ninety foot section of drill stem into the well, plaintiff was required to fasten a length of soft line to the end of the next section of drill stem lying on the storage rack. The other end of the soft line was attached to the block which when raised by the driller would in turn lift the section of drill stem to a vertical position preparatory to assembly and placement in the well. The soft line with which plaintiff ordinarily worked was a stout piece of rope of at least 1½ inch diameter which, according to the evidence, was more than adequate in size for the job it was being used to do. Plaintiff had just finished fastening the soft line to a section of drill stem and was guiding it upward by hand as the driller began raising the block when, for reasons unknown, the soft line parted some one or two feet above its lower end. The section of drill stem fell, striking plaintiff in the head, the force of the blow knocking him to the derrick floor. He was immediately assisted to the crew's quarters, given first aid treatment, and later removed by crew boat to a hospital ashore.

Defendant admits the occurrence of the incident described above but denies that the drill stem fell or that plaintiff was injured because of the negligent operation or unseaworthy condition of the SCI Rig No. 1. In addition, defendant contends that plaintiff's injuries were in fact caused by his own "fault, neglect, and inattention to duty," and that such contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff should operate either as a complete bar to his recovery or otherwise proportionately decrease any damages to which he might be entitled. The defense is without merit. The evidence before this Court shows that plaintiff can in no way be held to have caused or contributed to the occurrence of the unfortunate incident which resulted in his injury. There was simply no evidence whatsoever adduced at the trial of this case which tended to show that plaintiff had negligently or improperly affixed the soft line to the section of drill stem which subsequently fell and hit him. Nor was there any evidence showing that plaintiff should not have been standing immediately below the section of drill stem as it was being lifted. It was in fact necessary for him to be in that location in order to guide the drill stem upward with his hand, making sure that it did not hit any member of the drilling crew or some piece of the rig superstructure. On the contrary, the evidence shows conclusively that the soft line parted some one or two feet above its lower end, an event over which plaintiff obviously had no control. Although it is not clear exactly what caused the soft line to part as it did, it seems obvious that either (1) defective line must have been provided for plaintiff's use by his...