Union Barge Line Corp. v. Allen

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit May 24, 1966

Union Barge Line Corp. v. Allen, 361 F.2d 217 (5th Cir. 1966)

Dissenting Opinion

JONES, Circuit Judge

(dissenting).

The facts are set forth in the district court’s findings. Allen v. Union Barge Line Corporation, 239 F.Supp. 1004. The M/V Mariner was in dry dock undergoing an overhaul. Dravo Corporation was doing the work. Allen was its employee. Allen was on a scaffold erected by Dravo. Allen was engaged in the removal of the propeller shaft and specifically was either taking off or putting on a coupler bearing: The scaffold collapsed and he was hurt. I cannot agree that the vessel was in navigation or that Allen was engaged in work customarily performed by seamen. To affirm, as the majority does, seems to me an unwarranted extension of the doctrines announced in Ryan1 and Sieracki,2 therefore I

Dissent.

. Ryan Stevedoring Co., Inc. v. Pan-Atlantic SS Corporation, 350 U.S. 124, 76 S.Ct. 232, 100 L.Ed. 133.

. Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U.S. 85, 66 S.Ct. 872, 90 L.Ed. 1099.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

We find ourselves in agreement with the opinion and decision of the District Court reported in 239 P.Supp. at p. 1004.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name: UNION BARGE LINE CORPORATION and Aetna Casualty and Surety Company v. Walter M. ALLEN, Appellee Walter M. ALLEN v. UNION BARGE LINE CORPORATION, Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, and the M/V MARINER, Appellees DRAVO CORPORATION v. UNION BARGE LINE CORPORATION and Aetna Casualty and Surety Company
Cited By: 2 cases
Status: Published