## Facts

- Richard Carter worked for Bisso Marine Co., Inc. as head of its survey department and performed both managerial duties and field work.
- Carter regularly used the survey vessel BULLS EYE, including towing it by trailer to job sites, launching and operating it, deploying sounding equipment, and conducting underwater surveys.
- Carter also performed routine maintenance on the BULLS EYE and, at times, serviced electronic instrumentation on other Bisso vessels.
- The BULLS EYE was a 28-foot survey vessel with twin outboard engines, designed to be transported overland by trailer and ordinarily kept on its trailer at Bisso’s New Orleans yard when not in use.
- Carter alleged back injuries from multiple incidents, with principal claims tied to two events in 2000.
- On January 26, 2000, Carter alleged he injured his lower back while attaching the BULLS EYE’s trailer to a company truck by turning the trailer jack handle.
- Carter also alleged a separate work-related back injury on December 15, 2000, asserting liability under the Jones Act and general maritime law.
- Carter additionally referenced accidents in 1992 and 1993 as contributing to his back condition and damages.

## Issues

1. Whether Carter qualified as a Jones Act “seaman” given his mixed land-based and vessel-related duties and his work on the BULLS EYE and other vessels.
2. Whether Bisso was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Carter’s general maritime unseaworthiness claim.
3. Whether Carter presented sufficient evidence of negligence and causation to proceed on claims arising from the December 2000 accident.
4. Whether claims tied to the 1992 and 1993 accidents were legally barred or otherwise failed as a matter of law.

## Decision

- The court denied Bisso’s motion for summary judgment on Carter’s seaman status.
- The court denied Bisso’s motion for partial summary judgment on Carter’s unseaworthiness claim.
- The court denied Bisso’s motion for summary judgment on the December 2000 accident.
- The court granted Bisso’s motion for summary judgment on claims based on the 1992 and 1993 accidents.

## Legal Principles

- Jones Act seaman status turns on a worker’s connection to a vessel (or identifiable fleet) in navigation that is substantial in nature and duration; where the proportion and character of vessel-related work is genuinely disputed, seaman status is for the fact-finder rather than resolution on summary judgment.
- Unseaworthiness under general maritime law requires evidence that a vessel, its appurtenances, or crew were not reasonably fit for their intended purpose and that the condition proximately caused injury; disputed facts on condition and causation generally preclude summary judgment.
- Negligence and causation questions tied to a specific maritime accident are commonly fact-bound; conflicting evidence about how an injury occurred and what conditions contributed can defeat summary judgment.
- Claims based on earlier alleged accidents may be dismissed at the summary-judgment stage when legally barred (including by timeliness or other dispositive defenses), narrowing the case to surviving incidents.

## Conclusion

The court allowed Carter to proceed to trial on seaman status, unseaworthiness, and claims tied to the December 2000 incident because material factual disputes remained, while dismissing claims based on the 1992 and 1993 accidents as legally untenable at the summary-judgment stage.


Carter v. Bisso Marine Co., 238 F. Supp. 2d 778 (E.D. La. 2002)