In Gault v. Modern Continental/Roadway Construction Company, Inc. (2002) 100 Cal. App. 4th 991, the defendant hired the plaintiff, a trained pile driver, to work on a bridge construction project. The Court of Appeal's opinion does not discuss the plaintiff's specific duties, but states he performed most of his work aboard a barge or "floating platform" in the Dominguez Channel. The barge had three different 10 by 60 foot sections. The construction crew could move the sections around to configure them in various ways. The barge had no means of self-propulsion and was tied up to piles or anchored to the channel bottom "during much of the construction job." The barge moved around the work site two to three times per week. The crew used ropes to move the barge. The crew also used a crane to separate the sections of the barge when the workers needed to move the sections around the bridge piles. It is not clear from the opinion whether the barge was anchored to the channel bottom when the crew moved it or separated it into different sections. The plaintiff was injured while the crew was separating the sections of the barge. A "heavy load" on the section of the barge where the plaintiff was standing shifted and flipped over. The plaintiff was thrown into the water and lost a finger. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant, finding there were triable issues of material fact on whether the plaintiff satisfied the Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis (1995) test for seaman status. The defendant argued the barge was not a vessel in navigation because it had no transportation function and its only purpose was as a construction platform. The appellate court noted the crew was uncoupling and moving a section of the barge at the time the plaintiff was injured and concluded "the fact that the barge was in transit distinguishes Gipson and raises a triable issue of material fact regarding whether the barge was a 'vessel in navigation.' "