Legal Opinion
Fayard v. Contifleeting Inc.
Louisiana Court of Appeal
Decided June 3, 1987No. CA-7077PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CIACCIO, Judge.
In this Jones Act (46 U.S.C. 688) case plaintiff appeals a summary judgment denying her “seaman” status. We affirm.
While summary judgment on seaman status in Jones Act cases is rarely proper, and even in marginal cases should go to the jury, it is in some circumstances possible to rule as a matter of law that a worker is not a seaman. Bouvier v. Krenz, 702 F.2d 89, at 90 (5th Cir.1983), and cases cited therein; cf. Pizzitolo v. Electro-Cool Transfer Corp., 812 F.2d 977 (5th Cir.1987), where the appeals court affirmed the district court’s decision on the issue as a matter of law…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Jethro Barrett v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., E.B.B. Co., Inc. And Lift Barge, Inc. v. Maryland Casualty Company, Intervenor-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1986
- Manton Bouvier, Shirley Guidry Bouvier, Widow of Manton Bouvier v. A. KrenzCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1983
- Nicholas R. Pizzitolo, and National Union Fire Insurance Company, Intervenor-Appellant v. Electro-Coal Transfer CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1987
- Burrle v. International Marine TerminalsLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1986
3Cited by2 opinions
- LaFleur v. P & S Well Service No. 5, Inc.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1988
- Fayard v. Contifleeting, Inc.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1987