D. C. Thompson v. Crown Petroleum Corp., 418 F.2d 239 (5th Cir. 1969). · Go Syfert
Search
D. C. Thompson v. Crown Petroleum Corp., 418 F.2d 239 (5th Cir. 1969). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Various v. Various (paed, 2009-12-10)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Various v. Various
E.D. Pa. · 2009 · confidence medium
Thompson v. Crown Petroleum Corp., 418 F.2d 239, 240 (5th Cir.1969).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hubert Wayne Johnson v. John F. Beasley Construction Company, a Corporation
7th Cir. · 1984 · confidence medium
About the only floating structures unable to act as a means of transport on water are offshore drilling platforms, see, e.g., Thompson v. Crown Petroleum Corp., 418 F.2d 239, 240 (5th Cir.1969), and dry docks or floating docks that are regarded as nothing more than extensions of land, see, e.g., Cook v. Belden Concrete Products, Inc., 472 F.2d 999, 1001-02 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 868 , 94 S.Ct. 175 , 38 L.Ed.2d 116 (1973); Keller v. Dravo, 441 F.2d 1239, 1244 (5th Cir.1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1017 , 92 S.Ct. 679 , 30 L.Ed.2d 665 (1972). 9 .
discussed Cited "see" Bible v. Chevron Oil Company
E.D. La. · 1969 · signal: see · confidence high
See Thompson v. Crown Petroleum Corp., 5 Cir. 1969, 418 F.2d 239 (November 3, 1969), and the cases cited therein for the settled rule that, as a matter of law, stationary, fixed platforms are not vessels.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
D. C. THOMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CROWN PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee
27037_1.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Nov 3, 1969.
418 F.2d 239
Joe H. Tonahill, Jasper, Tex., for appellant., O. J. Weber, Jr., Beaumont, Tex., for Crown Petroleum Corp., Keith, Mehaffy & Weber, Beaumont, Tex., of counsel.
Gewin, Thornberry, Ainsworth.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

The District Court dismissed this Jones Act [1] suit on motion of respondent alleging lack of jurisdiction over both the subject matter and the person. Attached to the motion to dismiss was an affidavit by the President of the defendant corporation showing, inter alia, that plaintiff was employed as a driller helper on a stationary, fixed rig set up on a platform which had been in place for many years, located several miles out in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana, on which rig the injury occurred. The affidavit was not controverted. Fed.R. Civ.P. 56(e).

We affirm. Plaintiff lacks the status of a seaman requisite to invoke Jones Act jurisdiction. The law is well settled that a stationary, fixed platform, even though erected in coastal waters, is not a vessel, and consequently plaintiff was in no sense of the word a seaman when he was injured. Dronet v. Reading & Bates Offshore Drilling Co., 5 Cir., 1966, 367 F.2d 150, 151; Texas Company v. Savoie, 5 Cir., 1957, 240 F.2d 674, 675; Offshore Company v. Robison, 5 Cir., 1959, 266 F.2d 769, 771, 75 A.L.R.2d 1296; Ocean Drilling & Exp. Co. v. Berry Bros. Oilfield Service, 5 Cir., 1967, 377 F.2d 511, 513; Ross v. Delta Drilling Company, E.D.La., 1962, 213 F.Supp. 270, 271. Cf. Rodrigue v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, 395 U.S. 352, 89 S.Ct. 1835, 1837, 23 L.Ed.2d 360 (1969). Having so concluded, we do not reach the issue of lack of jurisdiction over the person and the related issues of improper venue and insufficiency of service of process.

Affirmed.