Page 25: of Marine News Magazine (June 2012)

www.marinelink.com MN25seaman if the Super Scoop was in actual navigation or transit at the time of his injury. Dutra argued the Super Scoops primary purpose was dredging, not transporta- tion, and it was stationary at the time Stewart was hurt. The federal trial court agreed with Dutra and dismissed Stewarts case. Later, the trial court also dismissed Stewarts alternative claim, that he was entitled to sue Dutra for vessel negligence? under the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act, agreeing with Dutra the Super Scoop was not a vessel in navigation? under that statute, either. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed both of the federal district courts rulings. The Supreme Court reversed. It first reviewed the feder- al statutory definition of a vessel? codified at 1 United States Code Section 3, which reads: The word vessel includes every description of watercraft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water.? The Supreme Court wrote that a watercraft is not capable of being used for maritime transport in any meaningful sense if it has been perma- nently moored or otherwise rendered practically incapable of transportation or movement.? But, the high court held, hen Stewart filed suit in federal district court in oston he claimed he was a ones ct seaman and alternatively a longshoreman or harbor worker covered by the federal ongshore and arbor orkers? ompensation ct. oth statutes however reuired the Super Scoop to be a vessel in navigation in order for Stewart to have the right to sue under them.