Sirmons v. Baxter Drilling, Inc., 10345.
Decision Date | 17 March 1965 |
Docket Number | No. 10345.,10345. |
Parties | Vana B. SIRMONS v. BAXTER DRILLING, INC. and Insurance Company of North America. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana |
Francis E. Mire, Lake Charles, La., for plaintiff.
Jones, Kimball, Harper, Tete & Wetherill, Lake Charles, La., for defendant.
Plaintiff has sued under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 688, alleging that he was injured on May 12, 1964 while working as a member of a crew of a vessel owned and operated by defendant, Baxter Drilling, Inc.
The case came on for trial on December 21, 1964, on the single issue of whether the plaintiff was a seaman and member of a crew of a vessel within the meaning and purview of the Jones Act. The Court finds the following facts to be relevant:
Baxter Rig No. 3 is, in essence, nothing more than eight "packages" of machinery which, when assembled, form a functioning drilling unit. The rig as such, is not susceptible of navigation under its own or other power. The platform on which the rig has been installed is likewise neither designed nor constructed as a vessel or special purpose craft. It cannot be moved from its position by any means short of dynamite charges which would destroy the usefulness of the platform.
The issues of this case were first presented to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Texas Co. v. Savoie, 240 F.2d 674 (5th Cir. 1957). In Savoie, the decedent worked on fixed platforms in a navigable lake and was transported from platform to platform aboard a lugger. It was contended that he was a seaman and member of the crew of the lugger and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ocean Drilling & Exploration Co. v. Berry Bros. Oilfield Service, Inc.
...150; Texas Co. v. Savoie, 5th Cir. 1957, 240 F.2d 674, cert. denied, 355 U.S. 840, 78 S.Ct. 49, 2 L.Ed.2d 51; Sirmons v. Baxter Drilling, Inc., W.D.La.1965, 239 F.Supp. 348. The injured employees are thus not entitled to the warranty of seaworthiness and must rely solely upon the establishm......
-
Johnson v. Noble Drilling Company
...meaning of the Jones Act or the general maritime law. Ross v. Delta Drilling Co., E.D.La. 1962, 213 F.Supp. 270, Sirmons v. Baxter Drilling Inc., W.D.La. 1965, 239 F.Supp. 348; Dixon v. Oosting, E.D.Va. 1965, 238 F.Supp. 25; Hill v. Diamond, E.D.Va. 1962, 203 F.Supp. 877, aff'd 4 Cir., 311 ......
-
Creel v. Drill Tender Jack Cleverly
...than one who performs a substantial portion of his work in furtherance of the mission of the ship. Compare: Sirmons v. Baxter Drilling Inc., W.D.La.1965, 239 F.Supp. 348; Dixon v. Oosting, E.D.Va.1965, 238 F.Supp. 25; Hill v. Diamond, E.D. Va.1962, 203 F.Supp. 877, aff'd 4 Cir., 311 F.2d 78......
-
Savard v. Marine Contracting, Inc., Civ. No. 12158.
...within the meaning of the Jones Act. Cf. Johnson v. Noble Drilling Co., 264 F.Supp. 104, 106 (W.D. La. 1966); Simmons v. Baxter Drilling, Inc., 239 F.Supp. 348 (W.D.La. 1965). Perini's final claim that there was an absence of an employer-employee relationship between decedent and Perini rai......