Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Union Barge Line Corp. v. Allen

361 F.2d 217

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1966-05-24
Topic
litigation

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.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Union Barge Line Corp. v. Allen. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
3 opinions
UNION BARGE LINE CORPORATION v. ALLEN,361 F.2d 217(5th Cir. 1966)
UNION BARGE LINE CORPORATION and Aetna Casualty and Surety Company,
Appellants, v. Walter M. ALLEN, Appellee. Walter M. ALLEN, Appellant, v.
UNION BARGE LINE CORPORATION, Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, and the
M/V MARINER, Appellees. DRAVO CORPORATION, Appellant, v. UNION BARGE LINE
CORPORATION and Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, Appellees.
No. 22763.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 24, 1966.
Rehearings Denied August 29, 1966.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana; E. Gordon West, Judge.
Lemle Kelleher, George B. Matthews, New Orleans, La., for Union Barge Line Corporation and Aetna Casualty Surety Co.

Adams Reese, George V. Baus, New Orleans, La., for Dravo Corp.

John L. Avant, Baton Rouge, La., for Allen.

Dodd, Hirsch, Barker, Avant Wall, Baton Rouge, La., for libelant-appellant.
Before JONES and GEWIN, Circuit Judges, and HUNTER, District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
We find ourselves in agreement with the opinion and decision of the District Court reported in 239 F. Supp. at p. 1004.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.
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 drydock 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 inRyan1andSieracki,2therefore I

Dissent.Page 220
  1. Ryan Stevedoring Co., Inc. v. Pan-Atlantic SS Corporation,350 U.S. 124,76 S.Ct. 232,100 L.Ed. 133. ↩
  2. Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki,328 U.S. 85,66 S.Ct. 872,90 L.Ed. 1099. ↩