In re Dearborn Marine Service, Inc., 72-2704.
Citation | 499 F.2d 263 |
Decision Date | 22 August 1974 |
Docket Number | No. 72-2704.,72-2704. |
Parties | In the Matter of the Complaint of DEARBORN MARINE SERVICE, INC., et al., for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability of the OIL SCREW CARRYBACK. Webster Barnwell ARMSTRONG, III, Individually, Etc., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CHAMBERS & KENNEDY et al., Defendants-Appellees-Appellants, Esther M. LOVE, Intervenor-Appellant-Appellee. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Robert H. Roch, Houston, Tex., for Esther Marie Love.
T. G. Schirmeyer, L. Glen Kratochvil, Houston, Tex., for Dearborn, Thoroughbred, et al.
Edward W. Watson, Houston, Tex., for Chapman Contracting.
Alice Giessel, Henry Giessel, Houston, Tex., for Drilling Eng.
W. Eugene Davis, New Iberia, La., Donald L. King, New Orleans, La., for Chambers & Kennedy, et al.
John N. Barnhart, Houston, Tex., for Lucille Monk et al.
Warner F. Brock, Houston, Tex., for Armstrong.
Carl Waldman, Ned Johnson, Beaumont, Tex., for Gaspard, Breaux et al.
William D. Hunter, Morgan City, La., for Cassel.
George B. Matthews, New Orleans, La., for Hartford.
H. Lee Leonard, Lafayette, La., for Employers Reins. Corp.
Wm. P. Rutledge, Lafayette, La., O. H. Deshotels, Jr., Kaplan, La., for Melancon et al.
Emile A. Carmouche, Crowley, La., Blake Tartt, Houston Tex., Edward W. Watson, Galveston, Tex., for Chapman and Home Indem. Co.
Before AINSWORTH, GODBOLD and INGRAHAM, Circuit Judges.
This consolidated litigation arises out of an offshore oil platform explosion that occurred May 28, 1970, over the outer Continental Shelf and caused extensive property damage and loss of human life on the platform and on a nearby vessel. The normal complexities engendered by such a holocaust are multiplied by the part-platform, part-admiralty factual context which necessitates meshing together the law of admiralty and the state law made the surrogate law of the platform by Rodrigue v. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co., 395 U.S. 352, 89 S.Ct. 1835, 23 L.Ed.2d 360 (1969).
The site of the explosion was an unmanned oil collection and storage platform located in the Gulf of Mexico twelve miles off the cost of Galveston, Texas and permanently affixed to the subsoil of the outer Continental Shelf. It was owned by Chambers and Kennedy (C & K), was maintained and operated by Drilling Engineering, Inc. (DEI) on behalf of C & K under a well-servicing contract, and it consisted primarily of five oil storage tanks with a capacity of 1,000 barrels each and one smaller tank. In March 1970, an agent of the Geological Survey1 wrote to C & K requesting that it bring its platform into compliance with various safety and pollution regulations.2 At this time the platform was in a generally deteriorated condition, some of the lateral braces were severely rusted, many of the boards were rotten or oil soaked, it was in need of painting, and in places the floor of the platform was warped. On April 10 C & K shut down production from the satellite wells whose production had been pumped into the tanks for storage, and the next day a barge transported to shore all oil then in the tanks.
Pursuant to its well-servicing contract with C & K, DEI began making the required alterations and repairs. DEI furnished a supervisor for the job and contracted with a labor supply firm to furnish pipefitters, welders, painters, and roustabouts. The work consisted of painting, sandblasting, and some "hot work," such as cutting with acetylene torches and welding. The hot work was generally done at an elevated heliport or at the perimeter of the platform away from the tanks. Since the platform was unmanned it was necessary that there be daily transportation from shore to platform and back to shore for those engaged in and supervising the work. Also, of course, various materials, supplies and equipment had to be transported to and from shore. Commencing May 3 or 4 and pursuant to an oral arrangement between DEI and Dearborn, the nature and consequences of which we will discuss later, the vessel serving these purposes was the CARRYBACK, an all steel, eighty-five foot vessel of 136 gross tons, powered by 670 h. p. twin diesels, having fifteen seats for passengers, and owned by Dearborn.3 Each day for the period after it arrived from shore and until it returned to shore the CARRYBACK remained in the vicinity of the platform, acting as a service and standby vessel. She carried a galley, cook and food and served meals to platform workmen as desired. She had toilets aboard — there were none on the platform — and workers could come aboard her to use them. The DEI supervisor, Monk, came aboard her to do office work where he could be away from the wind and noise of the platform and in air-conditioned surroundings. He was permitted to use her ship to shore radio with the permission of the captain. By May 25, labor for the alteration and repair work was being supplied by Chapman Contracting Service (Chapman).
Between April 10, when C & K had shut down production from the satellite wells, and May 25, and for reasons not disclosed in the record, the tanks collected about 1,100 barrels of oil. DEI's job-site supervisors, Rick Chapman of Chapman Contracting, and other executives of C & K and DEI knew that the tanks contained oil.
On May 27 representatives of the Geological Survey advised Monk, DEI's supervisor at the platform, that to comply with antipollution guidelines he would have to remove a valve from one of the equalizing lines between tanks. This was the first job to require breaking a connection leading directly to the oil storage tanks. Monk discussed the procedure with Overly, Chapman's supervisor at the platform, and on the morning of May 28 he discussed it with Rick Chapman, who had flown to the platform by helicopter to survey the work. The District Court4 reconstructed the attempts of May 28 to remove the valve:
340 F.Supp. at 1231-1232 (emphasis in original).
The CARRYBACK was just downwind of the explosion, tied to the platform on a seventy-five foot line with her stern toward the platform. With the explosion a flaming ball of oil rose above the platform and was carried by a wind of about eight knots to a point directly over the CARRYBACK, where it descended "as if it were an exploding bomb" and "instantaneously wrapped her in consuming fire". In only minutes all aboard perished — Captain Armstrong, the master; crew members Love and Cassel; and Monk, DEI's supervisor. The vessel was reduced to scrap metal. Of approximately twenty workers on the platform five were killed.
Dearborn filed a petition for limitation of or exoneration from liability in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Galveston Division, and answers and claims in this proceeding were filed by DEI, C & K, the heirs of Monk, Cassel, Love, and Armstrong, and by several platform workers and heirs of platform workers. In Texas state court Monk's estate sued C & K and Freeport Operators (Dearborn's subsidiary) who removed the cause to the federal District Court in Galveston. Suits in the same District Court, Houston Division, were filed by C & K against DEI and Chapman for damages to its platform, and by the heirs of Armstrong against C & K, DEI, Chapman, and Freeport Operators. The limitation proceedings in the Galveston Division were subsequently consolidated with the Houston suits for trial in the Houston Division, and it is from judgment entered in these consolidated proceedings after a trial without a jury that this appeal is taken. The posture of the parties under the judgment (excluding awards of indemnity) can be summarized this way, insofar as pertinent to this appeal.
Chapman: Labor supplier. Negligent.
Dearborn: Owner of the CARRYBACK. Negligence and unseaworthiness.
Love and Cassel: Crew members killed aboard the CARRYBACK.
Captain Armstrong: Master, killed aboard the CARRYBACK.
Monk: DEI supervisor, killed aboard the CARRYBACK.
Property damage: Loss of CARRYBACK.
Liability
C & K, Chapman, DEI and Dearborn:
Liable for deaths of Love and Cassel...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Barger v. Petroleum Helicopters, Inc.
...a finding that the decedent consciously suffered pain, any award for this element would be improper. In re Dearborn Marine Service, Inc., 499 F.2d 263, 288 (5th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 886, 96 S.Ct. 163, 46 L.Ed.2d 118 (1975). The evidence of the violent gyrations of his craft in......
-
Neal v. Barisich, Inc., Civil A. No. 88-3119.
...and concluded that Moragne remedies include those for pre-death pain and suffering, id. at 141. See also In re Dearborn Marine Service, Inc., 499 F.2d 263, 288 n. 50 (5th Cir.1974) (contrasting Dennis with pre-Moragne cases that looked to state law), reh'g denied, 512 F.2d 1061 (5th Cir.), ......
-
Bonnette v. Shell Offshore, Inc.
...Bertrand v. Forest Oil Corp., 441 F.2d 809 (5th Cir.1971); Bible v. Chevron, 460 F.2d 1218 (5th Cir.1972); and, In re Dearborn Marine Service, Inc., 499 F.2d 263 (5th Cir.1974). (Joint Opposition to Motion to Remand, pp. 5-7). The court in Dearborn, denying admiralty jurisdiction, addressed......
-
Law v. Sea Drilling Corp.
...diesel hammer from vessel to platform, we can assume they were Sieracki-ambiguous amphibious seamen although In re Dearborn v. Marine Service, Inc., 5 Cir., 1974, 499 F.2d 263, rehearing en banc denied, 512 F.2d 1061, might raise some doubts on analogizing this oil well exploratory drilling......
-
CHAPTER 7 LIABILITIES OF NONOPERATING OIL AND GAS INTEREST OWNERS
...e.g., Franklin Drilling Co. v. Jackson, 202 Okla. 687, 217 P.2d 816 (1950). [152] 340 F. Supp. 1220, 1234-35 (S.D. Tex. 1972), modified, 499 F.2d 263 (5th Cir. 1974), rehearing denied, 512 F.2d 1061, cert. dismissed, 423 U.S. 886 (1975); see also Continental Oil Co. v. Brack, 381 F.2d 682 (......
-
CHAPTER 1 LIABILITIES OF NONOPERATING INTEREST OWNERS
...e.g., Franklin Drilling Co. v. Jackson, 202 Okla. 687, 217 P.2d 816 (1950). [136] 340 F. Supp. 1220, 1234-35 (S.D. Tex. 1972), modified, 499 F.2d 263 (5th Cir. 1974), rehearing denied, 512 F.2d 1061, cert. dismissed, 423 U.S. 886 (1975); see also Continental Oil Co. v. Brack, 381 F.2d 682 (......
-
CHAPTER 3 THE TEXAS AND LOUISIANA ANTI-INDEMNITY STATUTES AS APPLIED TO OFFSHORE OIL & GAS INDUSTRY CONTRACTS
...864 F.2d 1171 (5th Cir. 1989) 33 Day v. J. Ray McDermott, Inc., 492 So.2d 83 (La. Ct. App. 1986) 52 In re Dearborn Marine Serv., Inc., 499 F.2d 263 (5th Cir. 1974), cert. dismissed, 423 U.S. 886 (1975) 286, 287 Dickerson v. Continental Oil Co., 449 F.2d 1209 (5th Cir. 1971), cert. denied su......
-
Commercial Transportation
...Id. at 1355.59. Id. at 1355-56.60. Offshore Logistics, Inc. v. Tallentire, 477 U.S. 207, 218 (1986); In re Dearborn Marine Service, Inc., 499 F.2d 263, 272 (5th Cir. 1974).61. LaCourse, 980 F.3d at 1356.62. Id. at 1358.63. Id. at 1358-59. 64. Id. at 1358-62.65. The concurrence was joined by......