 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mitchell v. Diamond Offshore Drilling11/2/2005
Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, Oswald A. Decuir and Marc T. Amy, Judges.
AFFIRMED.
This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries incurred by a seaman aboard an offshore drilling unit. Plaintiff sought recovery under the Jones Act, based on the negligence of plaintiff's employer, and under the general maritime law, based on the unseaworthiness of defendant's vessel. At issue is the correctness of the jury's verdict in favor of plaintiff finding the employer negligent and awarding damages to plaintiff in the sum of $630,000.00. For the following reasons, we affirm the jury's verdict.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff, Norman Mitchell, was employed by Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc., as a member of a crew working on an offshore drilling unit, the OCEAN SARATOGA. On December 15, 1999, plaintiff alleged he was injured while using a sledgehammer to drive a bushing into a rotary table on the drill floor of the OCEAN SARATOGA.
Plaintiff filed suit against Diamond, under the Jones Act, contending the OCEAN SARATOGA was unseaworthy because the bushings, which were previously repaired six months earlier, did not fit properly into the rotary table. Thus, a sledgehammer was required to drive the bushings into place. Plaintiff asserted this violated several safety policies.
Following four days of testimony, the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff finding Diamond was negligent. The jury denied plaintiff's claims against the OCEAN SARATOGA, finding the vessel was not unseaworthy. The jury awarded damages to plaintiff in the sum of $630,000.00. The trial court adopted the jury's verdict as its judgment. Diamond appealed the judgment, asserting the following assignments of error:
1. The jury's finding that Diamond was negligent was manifestly erroneous.
2. The trial court erred when it commented on the evidence during the jury charge and failed to allow adequate objection to the jury charge.
3. The trial court failed to consider Diamond's Jury Verdict Questionnaire.
4. The trial court erred in not including on the jury verdict questionnaire questions relating to the issues of causation, negligence and unseaworthiness.
5. The trial court erred in using a visual aid while explaining certain jury interrogatories which contained hand-written damage amounts suggested by the plaintiff during closing argument, and which was brought into the jury room as part of the evidence.
ANALYSIS
I. Negligence on the Part of Diamond
The following analysis of what constitutes negligence under the Jones Act was recited by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Foster v. Destin Trading Corp., 96-803, pp. 3-4 (La. 10/21/97), 700 So.2d 199, 208 (on rehearing):
The Jones Act allows an injured seaman to bring a negligence suit against his employer. 46 U.S.C.App. § 688 (1994). The employer's potential liability extends to all personal injuries arising during the course of the seaman's employment, but proof of negligence is essential to recovery. See Id. Such negligence may arise in many ways including the failure to use reasonable care to provide a seaman with a safe place to work, the existence of a dangerous condition on or about the vessel, or any other breach of the duty of care. See Davis v. Hill Engineering, Inc., 549 F.2d 314, 329 (5th Cir.1977); 1 Thomas J. Schoenbaum, Admiralty and Maritime Law § 6-21, at 312 (2d ed.1994). The duty of care owed by an employer under the Jones Act is that of ordinary prudence, namely the duty to take reasonable care under the circumstances. Gautreaux v. Scurlock Marine, Inc., 107 F.3d 33
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|