CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kenning v. Bludco Barge & Towing Co.

Randall Kenning appealed a take-nothing summary judgment in his suit against former employer Bludco Barge and Towing Company and Central American Barge & Towing Company. Kenning sued under the Jones Act, LHWCA, and general maritime law, claiming personal injury from toxic chemical exposure while repairing a cargo seal on a barge. The court affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that Kenning did not qualify as a Jones Act seaman as he was not permanently assigned to a vessel nor did a substantial part of his work occur on a vessel. Furthermore, the warranty of seaworthiness did not extend to him as he was tasked with repairing the known unseaworthy condition that allegedly caused his injuries. Kenning waived his LHWCA negligence claim during oral argument.

Jones ActLHWCAMaritime LawSeaman StatusUnseaworthinessSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryToxic Chemical ExposureBarge OperationsVessel Repair
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Golden v. Ohio Barge Line, Inc.

Three former employees of Ohio Barge Line, Inc. (Ohio) filed separate actions against Ohio, its parent United States Steel Corporation, and subsidiary Bradley Transportation Line for wrongful discharge. District 50, United Mine Workers of America, and its representatives were also joined as defendants in two of the actions. Ohio moved to vacate the service of process and dismiss the complaints, arguing it was not doing business in New York and thus not amenable to service there. The court found that Ohio, a separate Pennsylvania-incorporated subsidiary, was not subject to New York jurisdiction, rejecting the plaintiffs' argument that the parent company's presence extended jurisdiction. Consequently, the court granted Ohio's motions to dismiss and quashed the service of process.

JurisdictionService of ProcessCorporate VeilSubsidiary LiabilityWrongful DischargeFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 4Labor Management Relations ActLabor Management and Disclosure ActDistrict CourtIntercorporate Relations
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bailey v. SEABOARD BARGE CORP.

Plaintiff James Bailey, a tankerman, filed a lawsuit under the Jones Act and common law negligence against his employer and other defendants for injuries sustained while attempting to board a barge. Bailey claimed that an unsafe access route and a lack of clear instructions contributed to his fall into the water from a mothballed barge. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that a safe route was available and they were not responsible for the area where Bailey was injured. The court granted the defendants' motions, concluding that Bailey failed to prove a breach of duty of care or proximate causation, as he chose an unsafe alternate route not under the defendants' control.

Jones ActMaritime LawSeamen's InjuriesSummary JudgmentNegligenceLandowner LiabilitySafe Place to WorkBarge AccidentProximate CauseDuty of Care
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hodgson v. BARGE, WAGGONER AND SUMNER, INCORPORATED

This action was brought to enjoin Barge, Waggoner and Sumner, Incorporated from violating the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) regarding overtime compensation. The central issue was whether ten of the defendant's employees qualified for professional or executive exemptions under the Act. The court determined that the employees, being paid hourly and lacking a predetermined salary, did not meet the stringent exemption requirements. Consequently, the court instructed the plaintiff's attorney to calculate the overtime compensation due to these employees. However, due to the defendant's demonstrated good faith and absence of willful violation, the court declined to impose liquidated damages or grant a permanent injunction.

Fair Labor Standards ActOvertime PayEmployee ExemptionsSalary BasisExecutive EmployeeProfessional EmployeeAdministrative EmployeeHourly WagesInjunction DenialLiquidated Damages
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Complaint of Wepfer Marine, Inc. for Exoneration From or Limitation of Liability

Wepfer Marine, Inc. filed a petition to limit liability after Jose Ramon Gonzalez was injured during barge demolition. Gonzalez and his wife, along with Liberty Mutual, sued Wepfer in state court, leading Wepfer to seek federal limitation of liability. Claimants moved to dismiss the federal action, citing lack of admiralty jurisdiction due to the barge's 'dead ship' status and untimeliness of Wepfer's petition. The court granted dismissal for the main barge, ET-715, ruling it was a 'dead ship' withdrawn from navigation. However, it denied dismissal concerning the crane barge, finding potential causation through a broken crane cable, thereby retaining jurisdiction for that aspect. The court also found Wepfer's petition timely, as prior correspondence from claimants did not constitute sufficient written notice to trigger the statutory six-month filing period.

Admiralty LawMaritime LawLimitation of Liability ActVessel StatusDead Ship DoctrineAdmiralty JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionRule 12(b)(1)TimelinessWritten Notice of Claim
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sala v. Gates Construction Corp.

Plaintiff Richard Sala, a dockbuilder, was injured while working for Defendant Gates Construction Corp. on a crane barge in Brooklyn, New York. Sala brought this action under the Jones Act and the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA), alleging negligence after a timber struck him, causing a fractured skull and jaw and ongoing health issues. Defendant moved for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment on the Jones Act claim, concluding that the barges were not 'vessels in navigation' and Sala was not a 'seaman.' However, the court denied summary judgment on the LHWCA claim, stating that the barges could be considered vessels under the LHWCA's broader definition, leaving a factual issue for trial.

Jones ActLHWCASeaman StatusVessel in NavigationSummary JudgmentDockbuilder InjuryMaritime LawCrane BargeFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56Negligence
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 06, 2001

Orr v. City of New York

The plaintiff, employed as a marine oiler by the City of New York, sustained personal injuries after slipping on oil on a barge. He initiated an action under the Jones Act, seeking damages, but the City contested his status as a 'seaman,' arguing the barge was not a 'vessel in navigation.' Initially, the Supreme Court denied the City's summary judgment motion due to judicial estoppel. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, concluding that the barge functioned primarily as a work platform, was moored, and any transportation role was merely incidental, thereby precluding the plaintiff from seaman status under the Jones Act. Additionally, the appellate court found the doctrine of judicial estoppel to have been improperly applied in this context.

Personal InjuryJones ActSeaman StatusVessel in NavigationJudicial EstoppelSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewMaritime LawWorkers' CompensationBarge
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kennedy v. Weeks Marine, Inc.

Martin R. Kennedy was injured while working on a barge chartered by his employer, American Bridge Company, from Week’s Marine, Inc. Kennedy fell from a wooden plank serving as the barge's gangway, which was supplied by American Bridge. He brought suit pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 905(b), but Magistrate Judge David F. Jordan granted summary judgment for Week’s Marine, concluding they had no duty to provide a safe gangway under a bare boat charter. Kennedy appealed this judgment, arguing Week's Marine had knowledge of workers on the barge. The District Court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that Week's Marine, having relinquished control of the vessel in a bare boat charter, was not responsible for conditions arising after the charter or for providing a gangway, as the charterer, American Bridge, became the owner pro hac vice and bore that duty.

Bare Boat CharterMaritime LawSummary JudgmentLongshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActVessel Owner LiabilityCharterer LiabilityGangway SafetyDuty of CareOwner Pro Hac ViceAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp. v. United Stevedoring Division

This memorandum opinion addresses an indemnity action brought by shipowner Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation and Nilo Barge Lines, Inc., against stevedore United Stevedoring Division, States Marine Lines, Inc. The plaintiffs sought indemnity after settling a lawsuit filed by longshoreman Bedford Pitts, who was injured in September 1964 while working on an Olin barge due to an oily engine room deck, a condition the court deemed rendered the vessel unseaworthy. While the court found Pitts' decision to proceed with work under hazardous conditions constituted a breach of the stevedore's warranty of workmanlike service, it ultimately concluded that the shipowners were better positioned to prevent the accident. Plaintiffs were responsible for maintaining the engine room and failed to clean it despite knowing the potential for such conditions, also making it impossible for the stevedore to clean it at the time of the incident. Consequently, the court denied indemnity to Olin Mathieson and Nilo Barge Lines, holding them responsible due to their conduct preventing the stevedore's proper performance.

Indemnity ClaimBreach of Warranty of Workmanlike ServiceMaritime LawShipowner LiabilityStevedore OperationsUnseaworthinessLongshoreman InjuryContractual DutiesComparative FaultFifth Circuit Precedent
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ashjian v. Orion Power Holdings, Inc.

The plaintiff, an apprentice millwright employed by Elliott Turbomachinery Co., Inc. and Elliott Company (collectively Elliott), sustained injuries after stepping into an unguarded hatch on the barge *Gowanus Bay No. 3* while overhauling a turbine. The plaintiff commenced an action against the barge owners, the Orion entities (Orion Power Holdings, Inc. et al.), alleging common-law negligence. The Orion entities, in turn, filed a third-party claim for contractual indemnification against Elliott. The plaintiff also sought to amend the complaint to include claims under Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). The Supreme Court dismissed the common-law negligence claim, denied amendment for Labor Law § 200, granted amendment for Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6), and denied Elliott's motion to dismiss the indemnification claim. On appeal and cross-appeal, the higher court, guided by the precedent of *Lee v Astoria Generating Co., L.P.*, modified the order. It determined that the barge was a 'vessel' under federal maritime law, thus the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA) applied, preempting Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims and prohibiting contractual indemnification against the employer. Consequently, the court granted Elliott's motion to dismiss the contractual indemnification claim and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion to amend for Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). The court affirmed the dismissal of the common-law negligence claim and the denial of amendment for Labor Law § 200.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationFederal Maritime LawLongshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActPreemptionVesselCommon-Law NegligenceAmendment of Complaint
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 66 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational