## Facts

- Boland Marine & Manufacturing Co., a ship repair and manufacturing business, took custody and control of the U.S.S. KING from the U.S. Navy on April 24, 1974 to perform extensive repairs and modifications.
- During Boland’s nearly three-year custody (until March 8, 1977), the ship’s captain and crew were not aboard, and Boland had responsibility for the vessel.
- The work included major structural changes, including adding a section to the deckhouse and a forward mast; the repair bill exceeded $25 million.
- For at least part of the repair period, the ship’s engine and propellers were inoperable.
- On March 5, 1976, Floyd Leon Wixom, Jr., a Boland employee, fell from a scaffold aboard the U.S.S. KING and suffered serious injuries.
- Wixom sued Boland and its insurer in federal court under general maritime jurisdiction, seeking recovery under the Jones Act, unseaworthiness, and maintenance and cure.

## Issues

1. Whether the U.S.S. KING was a vessel “in navigation” at the time of Wixom’s injury for purposes of Jones Act seaman status.
2. Whether Wixom, a shipyard employee working during extensive repairs, qualified as a Jones Act “seaman.”
3. Whether the lack of an “in navigation” vessel and seaman status barred claims for Jones Act negligence, unseaworthiness, and maintenance and cure against Boland.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Boland.
- The court held that, under undisputed facts, the U.S.S. KING was not “in navigation” while undergoing extensive, long-term repairs and modifications under Boland’s exclusive control.
- Because the vessel was not in navigation and Wixom was not a crew member contributing to the vessel’s mission or function, Wixom was not a Jones Act seaman.
- Wixom’s Jones Act, unseaworthiness, and maintenance-and-cure claims therefore failed as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- Jones Act recovery is limited to “seamen,” and seaman status requires a sufficient connection to a vessel that is “in navigation” at the time of injury.
- Whether a vessel under repair remains “in navigation” turns on the extent and nature of the repair operations and who controls them.
- When a vessel is effectively withdrawn from navigation for substantial repairs under a shipyard’s control, shipyard workers performing that work generally do not attain seaman status.
- Absent seaman status tied to a vessel in navigation, claims for Jones Act negligence, unseaworthiness, and maintenance and cure are unavailable against the shipyard employer on those facts.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that a Navy vessel undergoing major, prolonged repairs under shipyard control was not in navigation, making a shipyard employee injured during that work ineligible for seaman remedies under the Jones Act, unseaworthiness, or maintenance and cure.


Wixom v. Boland Marine & Mfg. Co., 614 F.2d 956 (5th Cir. 1980)