Bros. Corp., 917 F.2d 885 (5th Cir.1990) (reversing summary judgment because fleet of barges had more than incidental transportation function). The above cases are typical of the numerous “special purpose vessel” cases this Circuit has decided. They exhibit a common theme: Despite the outward appearance of the structure at issue, if a primary purpose of the craft is to transport passengers, cargo, or equipment from place to place across navigable waters, then that structure is a vessel. In the special purpose craft cases, particularly the drilling barge cases, the transportation function of the structure was more than merely incidental to its purpose. Each craft was used as a work platform when 824 (5th Cir.1984), addressed the question of whether a “ 877 F.2d 393 (5th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). P.A.W. argues that our decision in Ellen-der
holding that floating barge moored to shore remaining in same place for approximately seven years and used as work platform to clean and strip cargo and gas from barges was not a vessel holding that two barges fastened together moored to bank of river and used to weld pipeline together were not vessels holding that the ij must make clean determinations of credibility holding that the limitation act does not apply to claims brought under the clean water act holding that barge moored to the shore and used as a stationary work platform to clean other barges was not a vessel