Case: 22-30488 Document: 00516821239 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/14/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
July 14, 2023
No. 22-30488
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Lester Johnson,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Cooper T. Smith Stevedoring Company, Incorporated,
Defendant—Appellee.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:20-CV-749
______________________________
Before Richman, Chief Judge, and Stewart and Douglas, Circuit
Judges.
Dana M. Douglas, Circuit Judge:
Plaintiff Lester Johnson (“Johnson”), an injured maritime worker,
appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgement to defendant
Cooper T. Smith Stevedoring Company, Inc. (“Cooper”) on his claims of
Jones Act negligence, failure to pay maintenance and cure, unseaworthiness,
and, alternatively, vessel negligence. The district court granted summary
judgment after concluding that Johnson had not put forth evidence showing
a genuine dispute of material fact concerning his seaman status or vessel
negligence. We AFFIRM.
Case: 22-30488 Document: 00516821239 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/14/2023
No. 22-30488
I.
Cooper has a facility for midstream cargo operations near Darrow,
Louisiana. At the Darrow facility, cargo operations occur while vessels are
located midstream in the Mississippi River. In connection with its
operations, Cooper owns and operates a weigh station vessel, the
AMERICA, which is used to transfer bulk cargo from barges to oceangoing
vessels.
Cooper’s Darrow facility hires longshoremen on a per-day basis
through the local union hall to load and unload vessels. Johnson worked
sporadically as a longshoreman for Cooper as early as 1998 and worked
regularly for Cooper from 2008 through the date of his injury on June 22,
2018, never going more than a week and a half without working. his
employment with Cooper, Johnson performed various jobs including
operating a front-end loader and track hoe, flagging cranes, and loading
barges.
According to Cooper, longshoremen like Johnson are not “assigned”
to the AMERICA, are not its crewmembers, and “do not operate it, maintain
it, clean it, fuel it, or perform any other functions similar to her crew,” but
instead are “instruct[ed]” to report to particular vessels “to identify the midstream location of the cargo barges and oceangoing vessels on which they will
be working.” In other words, Cooper gives longshoremen like Johnson
assignments to cargo barges and oceangoing vessels that are limited to
performance of “discrete tasks,” after which their connections to the vessels
end. Cooper also has full-time employees, which include crewmembers
assigned to the AMERICA.
On the evening of June 22, 2018, Johnson was injured when he fell to
the deck of the AMERICA from the deck of an adjacent cargo barge, the SCF
24122. On the night of the injury, Johnson reported to Cooper’s Darrow
2
Case: 22-30488 Document: 00516821239 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/14/2023
No. 22-30488
office and was transported from the landing dock to the AMERICA via crew
boat. Johnson’s job during that night’s operations was inside the hold of the
SCF 24112, operating a front-end loader to move cargo, soybean mill, into
the AMERICA’s “bucket,” which would then move the cargo to the hold of
an oceangoing vessel, the M/V XENIA. Cooper did not own or operate the
SCF 24112 or the M/V XENIA.
After the cargo in the hold of the SCF 24112 had been unloaded,
Johnson positioned the front-end loader to be removed from the cargo
barge’s hold by the AMERICA’s winch and then climbed an aluminum
ladder to exit the hold himself. The ladder was owned by Cooper and
permanently stored on the AMERICA. On the deck of the barge, Johnson
and another longshoreman, Joe Thomas, pulled the ladder out of the hold of
the barge and attempted to place it in its storage “slot” on the AMERICA.
Doing so was a routine task for Johnson and other longshoremen working for
Cooper.
This time, however, Johnson slipped, fell, and landed headfirst on a
catwalk on the AMERICA’s deck, 13 feet below. Johnson testified that he
and Thomas did not have any problem with the ladder, but that he slipped on
“cargo”—meaning pieces of grain and grain dust—on the deck of the barge.
He testified that cargo dust “gets all over the place” whenever vessels are
being loaded or unloaded and that he saw cargo all over the barge when he
got out of the hold the night of the accident.
Johnson suffered numerous personal injuries and was hospitalized
because of his fall. Over the next year and half, he underwent multiple
medical procedures (including two surgeries) and physical therapy. In
connection with his injuries, Johnson collected workers’ compensation
benefits from Cooper pursuant to the Longshore and Harbor Workers’
Compensation Act (“LHWCA”).
3
Case: 22-30488 Document: 00516821239 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/14/2023
No. 22-30488
Johnson filed suit against Cooper in federal district court in November
2020, alleging that he was a seaman and a member of the crew of the
AMERICA, and bringing claims of Jones Act negligence, failure to pay
maintenance and cure, and unseaworthiness (collectively, “seaman
claims”). In the alternative, Johnson alleged that if he was not a seaman and
was covered by the LHWCA, then Cooper as vessel owner had been
negligent pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 905(b) and general maritime law. After
discovery, Cooper moved for summary judgment, asserting that (1) Johnson
was not a “seaman”; (2) there were no facts to support a vessel negligence
claim under
33 U.S.C. § 905(b); and (3) Johnson’s general maritime law
negligence claim was barred by § 905(a)’s exclusivity provision. The district
court granted the motion and dismissed Johnson’s claims with prejudice.
According to the district court, Johnson failed to cite to evidence that showed
a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he was a seaman and,
alternatively, as to vessel negligence.
II.
“This court reviews de novo a district court’s grant of summary
judgment, applying the same standard as the district court.” Austin v. Kroger
Tex., L.P., 864 F.3d 326, 328 (5th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). Summary
judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “A genuine [dispute] of material
fact exists when the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a
verdict for the non-moving party.” Austin,
864 F.3d at 328 (citation
omitted). “All evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party and all reasonable inferences are drawn in that party’s
favor.”
Id. at 328–29 (citation omitted).
4
Case: 22-30488 Document: 00516821239 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/14/2023
No. 22-30488
“A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must
support the assertion” by “citing to particular parts of materials in the
record” or “showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or
presence of a genuine dispute.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). A party opposing
summary judgment “must go beyond the pleadings and designate specific
facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Little v. Liquid Air Corp.,
37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc). “[C]onclusory allegations” and
“unsubstantiated assertions” will not suffice.
Id. (citations omitted).
III.
On appeal, Johnson challenges the district court’s grant of summary
judgment to Cooper on his seaman claims and his vessel negligence claim.1
As explained below, after reviewing the record, we agree with the district
court that Johnson failed to show a genuine dispute of material fact as to his
claims. Cooper was therefore entitled to summary judgment.
A.
“The Jones Act grants ‘a seaman’ a cause of action against his
employer in negligence.” Sanchez v. Smart Fabricators of Tex., L.L.C., 997
_____________________
1
Cooper also asserts that Johnson’s general maritime law negligence claim is
barred by the exclusivity provision of 33 U.S.C. § 905(a) because Cooper was his employer
and secured payment of LHWCA compensation for his injury. “The liability of an
employer” for LHWCA compensation “shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability
of such employer to the employee . . . except . . . if an employer fails to secure payment of
compensation as required by” the LHWCA.
33 U.S.C. § 905(a). The district court ruled
that Johnson conceded this issue by failing to brief it and dismissed his general maritime
law negligence claim as barred by § 905(a). Johnson’s appellate brief likewise does not
address Cooper’s § 905(a) argument, and he has thus waived or abandoned the issue. See
Cavallini v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co.,
44 F.3d 256, 260 n.9 (5th Cir. 1995); McDowell
v. Home Depot USA, Inc.,
126 F. App’x 168, 170 (5th Cir. 2005) (“Where a claim is not
briefed on appeal, it is abandoned.”)
5
Case: 22-30488 Document: 00516821239 Page: 6 Date Filed: 07/14/2023
No. 22-30488
F.3d 564, 568–69 (5th Cir. 2021) (quoting
46 U.S.C. § 30104).2 “As the
courts have often lamented, the term ‘seaman’ is not defined in the Jones
Act.” In re Endeavor Marine Inc.,
234 F.3d 287, 290 (5th Cir. 2000). Thus,
it has largely fallen to the courts “to establish workable tests to define the
word ‘seaman.’” Sanchez, 997 F.3d at 569.
To qualify as a “seaman,” a maritime worker must satisfy a two-part
test: he or she (1) “must contribute to the function of the vessel or to the
accomplishment of its mission,” and (2) “must have a connection to a vessel
in navigation (or to an identifiable group of such vessels) that is substantial in
terms of both its duration and its nature.” Endeavor Marine, 234 F.3d at 290
(citing Chandris, 515 U.S. at 368)). Johnson claims that he is a seaman based
on his connection to the AMERICA.
The first part of this test, the “threshold requirement” of whether a
worker “does the ship’s work,” is “very broad.” Id. (cleaned up). “‘All
who work at sea in the service of a ship’ are eligible for seaman status.”
Chandris, 515 U.S. at 368 (quoting McDermott Int’l, Inc. v. Wilander, 498 U.S.
337, 354 (1991)) (emphasis in original). The parties and the district court all
agree that Johnson meets the first part of the test, and so do we. Johnson’s
work loading and unloading cargo contributed to the mission of the
AMERICA, as well as the various cargo barges and oceangoing vessels.
The second part of the test—whether the worker has a substantial
connection to a vessel—has two elements: the worker’s connection must be
“substantial in terms of both [1] its duration and [2] its nature.” Sanchez,
997 F.3d at 571 (quoting Chandris, 515 U.S. at 368). For the duration
_____________________
2
In addition to damages for negligence under the Jones Act, seamen may also
recover maintenance and cure and damages for unseaworthiness under the general
maritime law. See Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 347, 354 (1995).
6
Case: 22-30488 Document: 00516821239 Page: 7 Date Filed: 07/14/2023
No. 22-30488
element, the “rule of thumb for the ordinary case” is that “[a] worker who
spends less than about 30 percent of his time in the service of a vessel in
navigation should not qualify as a seaman.” Chandris, 515 U.S. at 371.
Recently, in Sanchez v. Smart Fabricators, the en banc court refined this
Circuit’s test for the nature element. 997 F.3d at 573–74. Post-Sanchez, we
consider four factors when deciding whether a worker’s connection to a
vessel is substantial in nature: (1) the worker’s exposure to “perils of the
sea,” meaning the hazards of a maritime working environment; (2) whether
“the worker owe[s] his [or her] allegiance to the vessel, rather than simply to
a shoreside employer”; (3) if his or her work is “sea-based or involve[s]
seagoing activity”; and (4) whether “the worker’s assignment to a vessel [is]
limited to performance of a discrete task after which the worker’s connection
to the vessel end[s],” or whether he or she stays with the vessel. Id. at 574.
Johnson’s claim to seaman status founders on the duration element of
the substantial-connection test. In opposing Cooper’s motion for summary
judgment in the district court, Johnson relied on two citations to his
deposition testimony to establish that he was a seaman: (1) that he worked for
Cooper for more than 20 years, and (2) that he took a crew boat provided by
Cooper from the Darrow landing dock to the AMERICA on the night he was
injured. The district court found this deposition testimony insufficient to
create a genuine dispute of material fact as to the duration element. We
agree. The fact that Johnson performed longshoring work for Cooper for 20
years does not, without more, create a genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether he had a connection to the AMERICA that was substantial in
duration. Likewise, the fact that Johnson was transported by crew boat to the
AMERICA on the night he was injured and was injured when he fell from an
adjacent vessel on to the AMERICA is not enough to qualify him as a seaman.
See Chandris, 515 U.S. at 363 (rejecting a “snapshot” test). A “more
enduring relationship” with the AMERICA is required.
Id.
7
Case: 22-30488 Document: 00516821239 Page: 8 Date Filed: 07/14/2023
No. 22-30488
On appeal, Johnson attempts to bolster his claim to seaman status by
citing to the declaration of Cooper’s Director of Maintenance, James
Gauthreaux, which describes Cooper’s midstream operations. Relying on
the declaration, Johnson’s argument seems to be that because his longshore
work for Cooper took place midstream in the Mississippi River and because
the AMERICA is part of Cooper’s midstream operations, we should infer
that he had a connection to the AMERICA that was substantial in duration.
Unfortunately for Johnson, however, nothing in Gauthreaux’s declaration
allows us to draw that inference.3
Assuming that this argument is not forfeited for failure to raise it in
district court, see Rollins v. Home Depot, USA, 8 F.4th 393, 397–98 (5th Cir.
2021), the Gauthreaux declaration does not create a genuine dispute of
material fact as to Johnson’s status. The declaration establishes that
longshoremen like Johnson performed their work for Cooper on vessels
midstream and that Cooper used the AMERICA in connection with its
midstream operations. But critically, the declaration is silent as to the
duration of the connection that longshoremen like Johnson had with the
AMERICA. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Johnson, we
simply do not know and cannot infer based on this record how often he
reported to or worked on, around, in service of, or in connection with the
AMERICA; there is a gap in the summary-judgment evidence that dooms his
claim to seaman status. See Little,
37 F.3d at 1075 (explaining that
“unsubstantiated assertions” do not satisfy nonmovant’s summary
_____________________
3
We also note that the section of Johnson’s appellant brief that most forcefully
argues that he had a connection to the AMERICA that was substantial in duration is
tellingly short on record citations to support its factual assertions. See Fed. R. App. P.
28(a)(8) (requiring argument contain “citations to . . . parts of the record on which the
appellant relies”); see also Little, 37 F.3d at 1075 (explaining that “unsubstantiated
assertions” do not satisfy nonmovant’s summary judgment burden).
8
Case: 22-30488 Document: 00516821239 Page: 9 Date Filed: 07/14/2023
No. 22-30488
judgment burden); cf. Endeavor Marine, 234 F.3d at 291 (holding that crane
operator who worked on a derrick barge had a connection to the vessel that
was substantial in duration because he spent almost all his time working on
the vessel in the 18 months prior to his accident).
Because Johnson did not show a genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether he had a connection to the AMERICA that was substantial in
duration, the district court was correct to grant summary judgment in
Cooper’s favor on Johnson’s seaman claims, and we need not proceed to
consider the nature prong of the substantial-connection test.
B.
In the alternative to his seaman claims, Johnson brought a claim
against Cooper as owner of the AMERICA pursuant to the LHWCA, 33
U.S.C. § 905(b). The district court granted summary judgment to Cooper
on this claim because Johnson failed to show a genuine dispute of material
fact as to vessel negligence. We agree.
Section 905(b) provides a cause of action to a person injured by
“negligence of a vessel,” with the caveat that “[i]f such person was
employed by the vessel to provide stevedoring services, no such action shall
be permitted if the injury was caused by the negligence of persons engaged in
providing stevedoring services to the vessel.” 33 U.S.C. § 905(b). In Scindia
Steam Navigation Co. v. De Los Santos,
451 U.S. 156 (1981), the Supreme
Court “outlined the three general duties shipowners owe to longshoremen.”
Howlett v. Birkdale Shipping Co., S.A.,
512 U.S. 92, 98 (1994) (citing Scindia,
451 U.S. at 167). Johnson contends that Cooper breached two of the Scindia
duties: (1) the “turnover duty,” which “relates to the condition of the ship
upon the commencement of stevedoring operations”; and (2) the “active
control” duty, which “provides that a shipowner must exercise reasonable
care to prevent injuries to longshoremen in areas that remain under the
9
Case: 22-30488 Document: 00516821239 Page: 10 Date Filed: 07/14/2023
No. 22-30488
‘active control of the vessel’” during stevedoring operations. Id. (citing
Scindia, 451 U.S. at 167–68).
Johnson failed to cite to any record evidence showing that Cooper
breached either duty. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) (explaining that a party
must support assertion that there is a genuine dispute of material fact by
“citing to particular parts of materials in the record” or “showing that the
materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine
dispute”); Little, 37 F.3d at 1075 (explaining that “conclusory allegations”
and “unsubstantiated assertions” do not satisfy nonmovant’s summary
judgment burden). Nor could he, as an independent review of the record
shows no evidence of vessel negligence. The district court was correct to
grant summary judgment to Cooper on Johnson’s § 905(b) claim.
IV.
As the district court stated in its ruling, summary judgment is about
evidence. “We resolve factual controversies in favor of the nonmoving party,
but only when there is an actual controversy, that is, when both parties have
submitted evidence of contradictory facts. We do not, however, in the absence
of any proof, assume that the nonmoving party could or would prove the necessary
facts.” Little, 37 F.3d at 1075 (citing Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n,
497 U.S.
871, 888 (1990)) (emphasis in original). Because Johnson did not—and could
not, based on his failure to put forth evidence—show a genuine dispute of
material fact as to his claims, the district court’s grant of summary judgment
to Cooper is AFFIRMED.
10
