Strother v. Bren Lynn Corporation

Decision Date16 June 1987
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 86-1336.
PartiesTimothy STROTHER v. BREN LYNN CORPORATION.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana

Leonard A. Radlauer, New Orleans, La., for plaintiff.

Leonard A. Young, New Orleans, La., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM RULING

DUHE, District Judge.

To prevail in this action, plaintiff Timothy Strother must state a general maritime law claim. The characterization of a tort claim as maritime requires both maritime locality and a significant relationship to traditional maritime activity. See Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, Ohio, 409 U.S. 249, 253, 93 S.Ct. 493, 497, 34 L.Ed.2d 454 (1972); Foremost Insurance Co. v. Richardson, 457 U.S. 668, 673, 102 S.Ct. 2654, 2658, 73 L.Ed.2d 300 (1982); cf. Woessner v. Johns-Mansville Sales Corp., 757 F.2d 634, 638 (5th Cir.1985) (admiralty jurisdiction of tort claims). Accordingly, Strother must raise a genuine factual dispute concerning these controlling issues to survive a motion for summary judgment. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed.2d 202, 211 (1986). Strother cannot rely on an absence of evidence to preserve this action for trial. See Fontenot v. Upjohn, 780 F.2d 1190, 1192 (5th Cir.1986).

The only evidence contained in the current record consists of the deposition testimony of plaintiff and his supervisor, Keith J. Manning. Both men indicate that plaintiff's injury occurred in an inland marsh. This area is described as "ranging with water, some small amounts of water and green grass, mostly grass and vegetation." Manning deposition p. 7. Manning further testified that the water depth ranged from zero to three feet, and that "the only type of boat that you could even think about putting in there was an air boat or maybe a small pirogue." Manning deposition pp. 16-17. See also Manning deposition pp. 18-19.

The test of navigability is the capability of a waterway to be used in commerce. Richardson v. Foreman Insurance Co., 641 F.2d 314, 316 (5th Cir.1981), aff'd 457 U.S. 668, 102 S.Ct. 2654, 73 L.Ed.2d 300 (1982). See also Wilder v. Placid Oil, 611 F.Supp. 841, 845 (W.D.La. 1985). Commerce is defined as activity related to the business of shipping. Adams v. Montana Power Company, 528 F.2d 437, 439 (9th Cir.1975), citing The Montello, 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 430, 442, 22 L.Ed. 391 (1874). The area in which Strother was injured is clearly incapable of supporting maritime commerce. Because this marsh is not navigable, Strother's claim fails the test of maritime locality.

Moreover, consideration of the four factors outlined in Kelly v. Smith, 485 F.2d 520, 525 (5th Cir.1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 969, 94 S.Ct. 1991, 40 L.Ed.2d 558 (1974), indicates that Strother's work bore no significant relationship to traditional maritime activity. The amphibious vehicle involved was not a vessel. See Percle v. Western Geophysical Co. of America, 528 F.Supp. 227, 230 (E.D.La.1981); see also Barger v. Petroleum Helicopters, Inc., 692 F.2d 337, 339 (5th Cir.1982) (amphibious aircraft); Bernard v. Binnings Construction Co., Inc., 741 F.2d 824, 828-29 (5th Cir.1984) (Jones Act vessel). Compare Melancon v. Tassin Amphibious Equipment, Inc., 469 So.2d 6, 8 (La.App.1985), writ denied, 474 So.2d 1309 (La.1985), with Cambre v. Tassin Amphibious Equipment Corp., 464 So.2d 878, 880 (La.App. 1985), writ denied, 466 So.2d 1302 (La. 1985). Strother was not performing a traditional seaman's role. The causation of his injury was not uniquely associated with a marine environment. Finally, the purpose of the constitutional grant of admiralty jurisdiction — uniformity in maritime law — is not implicated by this action. Strother's essentially terrestrial activities are properly governed by state law. See Adams v. Montana Power Company, 354 F.Supp. 1111, 1113 (D.Montana 1973), aff'd, 528 F.2d 437 (9th Cir.1975).

Because Strother fails to state a general maritime law claim, summary judgment is proper. Although diversity jurisdiction may exist, the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Smith v. The Abandoned Vessel
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • 27 de abril de 2009
    ...106. If a waterway is capable of being used for interstate commerce, it is said to be a navigable waterway. Strother v. Bren Lynn Corp., 671 F.Supp. 1118, 1119 (W.D.La.), aff'd, 834 F.2d 1023 (5th Cir. 107. Whether the waterway has been or is presently used for interstate commerce is of no ......
  • Haire v. Destiny Drilling (USA), Inc.
    • United States
    • Longshore Complaints Court of Appeals
    • 25 de setembro de 2002
    ... ... Duplantis, at *3 (emphasis ... in original). In Strother v. Bren Lynn Corp., 671 ... F.Supp. 1118, 1119 (W.D. La. 1987), a ... ...
  • Belk v. Entergy La.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana
    • 17 de novembro de 2022
    ... ... marshes as navigable waters. Strother v. Bren Lynn ... Corp., 671 F.Supp. 1118, 1119 (W.D. La. June 16, ... ...
  • Dune Energy, Inc. v. Frogco Amphibious Equip., LLC, CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-3166
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana
    • 29 de abril de 2013
    ...is a "sometime vessel," meaning that it is only a vessel when it is in travel on a navigable stream or waterway. Strother v. Bren Lynn Corp., 671 F. Supp. 1118 (W.D. La. 1987), aff'd, 834 F.2d 1023 (5th Cir. 1987); Percle v. Western Geophysical Co., 528 F. Supp. 227 (E.D. La. 1981); see als......
1 books & journal articles

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