Offshore Co. v. Robison
75 A.L.R. 2d 1296, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 5020, 266 F.2d 769 (1959)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A worker qualifies as a "seaman" under the Jones Act if they are assigned permanently to a vessel or perform a substantial part of their work on it, and the capacity in which they are employed contributes to the function of the vessel or the accomplishment of its mission. The determination of a worker's status as a seaman is a question for the jury if there is a reasonable evidentiary basis for such a finding.
Facts:
- Offshore Company hired Johnie Robison to work as a member of a drilling crew on its mobile drilling rig, Offshore No. 55.
- Offshore No. 55 was a special-purpose barge with retractable legs, navigational lights, and crew quarters, which was towed between drilling locations in the Gulf of Mexico.
- While the rig was being moved between locations, Robison's duties included preparing machinery, securing materials on deck, chipping rust, painting, and handling lines from other vessels.
- At the time of the accident, Offshore No. 55's legs were lowered, and it was resting firmly on the seabed of the Gulf of Mexico, operating as a drilling platform.
- Robison was working as a roughneck on the main deck, preparing threaded drill casing to be hoisted to the drilling floor.
- A 1,620-pound section of casing pipe slid unsecured down a catwalk from the drilling floor above, catapulting towards Robison.
- While attempting to escape, Robison's foot was caught between a pipe and a beam, and the falling casing struck the pipe, severely fracturing his leg.
Procedural Posture:
- Johnie Robison sued the Offshore Company in a federal trial court under the Jones Act and general maritime law.
- The case was tried before a jury.
- At the close of evidence, Offshore Company moved for a directed verdict, which the trial court denied.
- The jury returned a verdict for Robison, finding via special interrogatories that Offshore No. 55 was a vessel, Robison was a member of its crew, and Offshore Company was negligent.
- The jury awarded damages but found Robison 25% contributorily negligent; the court entered judgment for the reduced amount and also awarded maintenance and cure.
- Offshore Company's motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict was denied by the trial court.
- Offshore Company, as appellant, appealed the final judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an oil field worker, injured on a mobile drilling platform resting on the seabed in navigable waters, present a sufficient evidentiary basis for a jury to find that he is a "seaman" and a "member of a crew of a vessel" under the Jones Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Wisdom, Circuit Judge.
Yes. An evidentiary basis exists for a jury to find the worker is a seaman under the Jones Act. The terms "seaman" and "vessel" have been interpreted liberally by courts to achieve the remedial purposes of the Act. Supreme Court precedent establishes that the determination of seaman status is a question of fact for the jury if there is a reasonable evidentiary basis for the conclusion. The traditional requirement that a worker be aboard 'primarily to aid in navigation' has been significantly diluted. In its place, the court established a two-part test: (1) the worker must be assigned permanently to a vessel (including special-purpose structures) or perform a substantial part of his work on it; and (2) the worker’s duties must contribute to the function of the vessel or the accomplishment of its mission. Because Robison was permanently assigned to Offshore No. 55, a special-purpose vessel, and his duties contributed to its mission of drilling for oil, there was sufficient evidence to submit the question of his seaman status to the jury.
Analysis:
This landmark decision established what became known as the 'Robison test' in the Fifth Circuit for determining seaman status under the Jones Act. It solidified the trend of treating seaman status as a question of fact for the jury, making it significantly more difficult for employers to defeat such claims on summary judgment. The ruling broadened the definitions of 'seaman' and 'vessel' to encompass industrial workers on unconventional, special-purpose structures like mobile offshore drilling rigs. This case was pivotal in extending the protections of the Jones Act to a vast new class of workers in the burgeoning offshore oil and gas industry.
Unlock the full brief for Offshore Co. v. Robison