Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Bobby Joe Crafton v. Tennessee Valley Sand & Gravel Company

408 F.2d 1096

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1969-03-11
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: Pursuant to Rule 18 of the Rules of the Court, this case has been placed on the summary calendar for disposition without oral argument. 1 Crafton brought suit under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 688. The district court found that he was a “seaman” acting in the course of his employment as a member of the crews of the Dredge Emma Coffey and the Dredge McCullough when he was injured while temporarily assigned to a newly constructed dredge being prepared for use by his employer. Since recovery under the Jones Act is predicated on the injury taking place “in the course of employment”, the exact place of injury is not controlling. Magnolia Towing Company v. Pace, 5 Cir., 1967, 378 F.2d 12.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Bobby Joe Crafton v. Tennessee Valley Sand & Gravel Company. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
15 opinions
CRAFTON v. TENNESSEE VALLEY SAND GRAVEL CO.,408 F.2d 1096(5th Cir. 1969)
Bobby Joe CRAFTON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TENNESSEE VALLEY SAND GRAVEL
COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 26833.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 11, 1969.
Page 1097
Charles E. Lugenbuhl, Thomas W. Thorne, Jr., New Orleans, La., Gorman R. Jones, Jr., Sheffield, Ala., for defendant-appellant; McDonnell Jones, Sheffield, Ala., and Lemle, Kelleher, Kohlmeyer, Matthews Schumacher, New Orleans, La., of counsel.

Howell T. Heflin, Gene M. Hamby, Jr., Tuscumbia, Ala., Robert B. Reed, Paducah, Ky., for plaintiff-appellee; Heflin Rosser, Tuscumbia, Ala., of counsel.
Before BELL, AINSWORTH, and GODBOLD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to Rule 18 of the Rules of the Court, this case has been placed on the summary calendar for disposition without oral argument.1

Crafton brought suit under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 688. The district court found that he was a "seaman" acting in the course of his employment as a member of the crews of the Dredge Emma Coffey and the Dredge McCullough when he was injured while temporarily assigned to a newly constructed dredge being prepared for use by his employer.

Since recovery under the Jones Act is predicated on the injury taking place "in the course of employment", the exact place of injury is not controlling. Magnolia Towing Company v. Pace, 5 Cir., 1967,378 F.2d 12. The only requirement is that the seaman be "doing the work of his employer pursuant to his employer's orders." Braen v. Pfeifer Oil Transportation Company, 1959,361 U.S. 129,133,80 S.Ct. 247,250,4 L.Ed.2d 191. This presupposes that the injured person is a seaman within the meaning of the Act. The sole issue here, as it was in the district court, is whether Crafton was a seaman. The conclusion of the district court that he was at the time of his injury is sustained by the underlying facts. The findings are not clearly erroneous. There the matter ends.

Affirmed.
  1. In order to establish a docket control procedure, the Fifth Circuit adopted new Rules 17-20 on December 6, 1968. See Wittner v. United States, 5 Cir., 1969,406 F.2d 1165, Fn. 1 and Appendix thereto. ↩