Legal Opinion
Henry E. Rao v. Hillman Barge & Construction Company
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided September 29, 1972No. 71-1794PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
2Per curiam
While a tank barge owned by United States Steel Corporation was being repaired at a dry dock owned by Hillman Barge & Construction Company, appellant’s employer, Rao sustained an injury and thereafter brought this action under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 688, and joined a claim for unseaworthiness. A jury found that in performing the duties of a helper to a paint sprayer in the dry dock repair yards, appellant did not qualify as a “seaman” under the Jones Act. The district court, 326 F.Supp. 1091, thereafter entered judgment on the Jones Act count and granted appel-lee’s…
3Cases cited10 opinions
- Seas Shipping Co. v. SierackiSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. HawnSupreme Court of the United States · 1953
- United New York & New Jersey Sandy Hook Pilots Ass'n v. HaleckiSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
- Guzman v. PichiriloSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Delta Engineering Corp. v. ScottCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1963
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by17 opinions
- Bowers v. GarfieldDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1974
- Claude Ducote v. International Operating Co. Of La., Inc., Etc., Burnside Terminal D/B/A International Operating Co., of La., and Riverway CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1982
- Mae Trussell v. Litton Systems, Inc., Robbie Trussell v. Frigitemp CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1985
- Bossard v. Port Allen Marine Service, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1980
- Keller v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. New Hampshire · 1983
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.