review of these decisions indicates three factors common to them: (1) the structures involved were constructed and used primarily as work platforms; (2) they were moored or otherwise secured at the time of the accident; and (3) although they were capable of movement and were sometimes moved across navigable waters in the course of normal operations, any transportation function they performed was merely incidental to their primary purpose of serving as work platforms. Id. at 831. From this, the court concluded that the work punt was not a vessel because it was not designed for navigation and it did not have any significant transportation function. Id. at 832. Several of our eases have followed this reasoning. See, e.g., Gremillion v. Gulf Coast Catering Co., 904 F.2d 290 (5th Cir. 1990) (<HOLDING>); Daniel v. Ergon, Inc., 892 F.2d 403 (5th
holding that floating casino was not a covered situs holding that jury returning verdict 45 minutes after informed would be sequestered in hotel was not coerced into verdict holding that riverboat casino was not a vessel holding that it would not be unreasonable to find condition in hotel lunchroom unsafe because invitee would be distracted holding that shoreside quarterboat barge serving as floating hotel was not a vessel