barge, that fact is at most tangential. The barge was not complete or in navigation when the accident occurred, and the accident neither caused harm to the barge nor can be specifically attributed to the location of the derrick on the vessel. Moreover, as noted above, the chain used was of a type predominantly employed for nonmaritime purposes. Neither the vehicle nor the instrumentalities involved, therefore, raise considerations creating a significant nexus to traditional maritime activities. Id. at 1427. The vehicles and instrumental-ities in the present case are the same as those in Molett I. Our law of the case doctrine requires that we find the maritime nexus lacking with respect to this factor. See also Watson v. Massman Construction Co., 850 F.2d 219, 223 (5th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). 3. The causation and type of injury Molett I
holding that platform workers death caused by an explosion on a platform bore no significant relation to maritime law even though the death occurred while the worker was located on a vessel in navigable waters holding that federal maritime law and not state law applies to all actions for wrongful death in navigable state waters holding that a worker injured on actual navigable waters in the course of employment is covered under the lhwca holding that despite the presence of a barge in navigable water which contributed to the death of a construction worker the vehicles and instrumentalities factor did not support a finding of maritime nexus holding offshore platform worker not engaged in maritime employment