Union Barge Line Corp. v. Allen
Union Barge Line Corp. v. Allen
Dissenting Opinion
(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 Ryan
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
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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.