Naquin v. Elevating Boats, L.L.C.

Citation744 F.3d 927
Decision Date10 March 2014
Docket NumberNo. 12–31258.,12–31258.
PartiesLarry NAQUIN, Sr., Plaintiff–Appellee v. ELEVATING BOATS, L.L.C., Defendant–Appellant.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Timothy John Young, Esq., Young Firm, New Orleans, LA, John Peyton Randolph, II, Law Offices of J. Peyton Randolph, II, Ridgeland, MS, for PlaintiffAppellee Larry Naquin, Sr.

Foster P. Nash, III, Degan, Blanchard & Nash, Jonathan Holden Adams, Esq., Attorney, Laurence Edward Best, Koeppel Traylor, New Orleans, LA, for DefendantAppellant ELEVATING BOATS, L.L.C.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Before DAVIS and JONES, Circuit Judges, and MILAZZO, District Judge. *

W. EUGENE DAVIS, Circuit Judge:

DefendantAppellant Elevating Boats, LLC (EBI) employed PlaintiffAppellee Larry Naquin, Sr. (Naquin) as a vessel repair supervisor at its shipyard facility in Houma, Louisiana. After Naquin was severely injured in an accident in the shipyard, a jury found that EBI was negligent, found that Naquin qualified for seaman status, and awarded him money damages under the Jones Act. Because the evidence supports the jury's determination of seaman status and liability, we AFFIRM the district court's judgment on liability; because the damages determination was erroneously based upon emotional anguish resulting from the death of a third party, we VACATE the damages award and REMAND for a new trial on damages.

I.

EBI manufactures, operates, and maintains a fleet of specialty lift-boats 1 and marine cranes out of several Louisiana port facilities. EBI employed Naquin at its shipyard in Houma, Louisiana, where he had served as a vessel repair supervisor since 2005. Naquin's primary responsibility as a vessel repair supervisor was the maintenance and repair of EBI's fleet of lift-boat vessels. Ordinarily, Naquin worked aboard the lift-boats while they were moored, jacked up, or docked in EBI's shipyard canal. Naquin's spent approximately 70 percent of his total time working aboard these vessels, including inspecting them for repairs, cleaning them, painting them, replacing defective or damaged parts, performing engine repairs, going on test runs, securing equipment, and operating the vessel's marine cranes and jack-up legs. Two to three times per week, Naquin would do his work while the vessel was being moved to another position in the canal. Occasionally, EBI dispatched Naquin to repair a vessel or fill in as a vessel crane operator while the vessel was operating in open water. Naquin spent the remaining 30 percent of his time working in the shipyard's fabrication shop or operating the shipyard's LC–400 land-based crane.

On November 17, 2009, Naquin was using the shipyard crane, which had been designed and constructed by EBI, to relocate a test-block, a heavy iron weight used to test the lifting capacity of cranes. Although the test-block was well within the LC–400's rated capacity, the crane suddenly failed, causing the boom and crane house to separate from the crane pedestal. As the crane toppled over onto a nearby building, Naquin was able to jump from the crane house. However, he did not avoid injury; he sustained a broken left foot, a severely broken right foot, and a lower abdominal hernia. Naquin's cousin's husband, who happened to be another EBI employee, was working in the building and was crushed by the crane and killed. Naquin learned of his death while in the hospital after the accident, either later that same day or the next day. 2

Following the accident, Naquin underwent one surgery for his hernia and one surgery to repair his right foot. Because Naquin's right foot was fractured in several places, a plate and screws were required to repair the damage. Despite Naquin's reparative surgeries and 70 physical therapy sessions, he was not able to return to physical work. EBI subsequently offered Naquin a “desk job” at the shipyard, but he declined, asserting that he was too emotionally upset to return to work. Although Naquin's medical treatment had ceased, at the time of trial, he continued to complain of chronic pain in his feet, difficulty walking, and chronic depression.

In November 2010, Naquin filed the instant Jones Act suit, alleging that EBI was negligent in the construction and/or maintenance of the LC–400 shipyard crane. After a three-day trial, a jury concluded that Naquin was a Jones Act seaman and that EBI's negligence caused his injury. The jury awarded Naquin $1,000,000 for past and future physical pain and suffering, $1,000,000 for past and future mental pain and suffering, and $400,000 for future lost wages. EBI immediately filed motions requesting a judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, a new trial on damages, and remittitur. The district court denied all of EBI's motions, and EBI now appeals.

II.

“The determination of whether an injured worker is a seaman under the Jones Act is a mixed question of law and fact and it is usually inappropriate to take the question from the jury.” 3 Accordingly, we will not disturb a jury's finding of seaman status unless the facts and the law do not “reasonably support” its conclusion.4

Conversely, the appropriate standard of review to test a jury's factual findings is whether there is “reasonable evidentiary basis for the jury's verdict.” 5 We therefore review the evidence “in the light most favorable to the verdict. ‘Only when there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the conclusion reached does a reversible error appear.’ 6 As always, conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.

III.

On appeal, EBI challenges multiple legal conclusions and factual determinations of the district court. We now address, in order, EBI's contentions (1) that Naquin was not a Jones Act seaman, (2) that the district court provided the jury with erroneous seaman status instructions, (3) that the evidence is insufficient to establish EBI's negligence, and (4) that the district court erred by admitting evidence of Naquin's relative's death to support Naquin's emotional damages claim.

A.

EBI first argues that the jury erred in its determination that Naquin was a seaman entitled to Jones Act coverage. Specifically, EBI argues that because Naquin is a land-based ship-repairman, he is not connected to vessels in navigation and cannot qualify as a seaman.

In support of its argument that Naquin is not a seaman, EBI primarily argues that Naquin is a land-based repairman who performs classic land-based harbor worker duties. As EBI points out, the Jones Act's land-based worker counterpart, the Longshore and Harbor Worker's Compensation Act (“LHWCA”) expressly identifies “ship repairm[e]n” as subject to its coverage.7 Because the LHWCA and Jones Act are mutually exclusive compensation schemes, EBI argues, Naquin's coverage under the LHWCA precludes his coverage under the Jones Act.

A few years ago we agreed with EBI's position.8 However, the Supreme Court rejected this position and overruled our decision in Pizzitolo in Southwest Marine, Inc. v. Gizoni.9 There, the Court clarified that the Jones Act covers any worker who qualifies as a “seaman,” without regard to whether a worker may also qualify for coverage under the LHWCA.10 This is true even in the case where a worker's job is specifically identified for coverage under the LHWCA.11 Thus, the fact that Naquin performed ship repair duties (identified as covered by the LHWCA) cannot distract us from the threshold inquiry: whether Naquin first qualifies as a seaman.12

Though the Jones Act does not define “seaman,” Congress has elsewhere defined it as the “master or member of a crew of any vessel.” 13 To determine if a worker is a seaman or member of a vessel'screw, the Supreme Court has established a two-prong test: “First, ‘an employee's duties must contribute to the function of the vessel or to the accomplishment of its mission.’ Second, ‘a seaman must have a connection to a vessel in navigation (or to an identifiable group of such vessels) that is substantial in terms of both duration and nature.’ 14 Importantly, an individual can still qualify for seaman status even if he divides his time among multiple vessels under common ownership or control.15 The relevant question is whether, in the course of his current job, he substantially contributes to the vessels' functions and maintains a substantial connection with the fleet.16

[S]atisfying the first prong of the [seaman] test is relatively easy: the claimant need only show that he does the ship's work.” 17 Under this standard, there can be little doubt that Naquin did the ship's work and contributed to the function of EBI's vessels. As EBI concedes, Naquin spent the majority of his time repairing, cleaning, painting, and maintaining the 26–30 lift-boat vessels that EBI operated out of the Houma shipyard. Moreover, the remainder of Naquin's hours aboard EBI lift-boats was spent operating the marine crane and securing the deck for voyage. Equipment operators and mechanics performing such tasks are necessary to the function and operation of any vessel.18

Turning to the second prong of the seaman test, Naquin is only eligible for Jones Act coverage if his connection to the EBI lift-boat fleet is “substantial in terms of both duration and nature.” 19 As the Supreme Court has explained, the fundamental purpose of the substantial connection requirement is “to separate the sea-based maritime employees who are entitled to Jones Act protection from those land-based workers who have only a transitory or sporadic connection to a vessel in navigation, and therefore whose employment does not regularly expose them to the perils of the sea.” 20 Thus, a worker seeking seaman status must separately demonstrate that his connection to a vessel or fleet of vessels is, temporally, more than fleeting, and, substantively, more than incidental.21 These inquiries are not always distinct, but are interrelated elements of the same substantial connection requirement.22

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
66 cases
  • Mims v. Deepwater Corrosion Servs., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • 16 Marzo 2015
    ...qualifies as a “seaman” under the Jones Act is a mixed question of law and fact, usually determined by a jury. Naquin v. Elevating Boats, LLC, 744 F.3d 927, 931 (5th Cir.2014). It is rare that summary judgment on seaman status is proper, and even “marginal cases should go to the jury.” Bouv......
  • Mims v. Deepwater Corrosion Servs., Inc., CIVIL ACTION H-14-0594
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • 16 Marzo 2015
    ...as a "seaman" under the Jones Act is a mixed question of law and fact, usually determined by a jury. Naquin v. Elevating Boats, LLC, 744 F.3d 927, 931 (5th Cir. 2014). It is rare that summary judgment on seaman status is proper, and even "marginal cases should go to the jury." Bouvier v. Kr......
  • Meaux v. Cooper Consol., LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana
    • 6 Agosto 2020
    ...not define ‘seaman,’ Congress has elsewhere defined it as the ‘master or member of any crew of any vessel.’ " Naquin v. Elevating Boats, L.L.C. , 744 F.3d 927, 932 (5th Cir. 2014) (citing Chandris, 515 U.S. at 355-56, 115 S.Ct. 2172 ; 33 U.S.C. § 902(3)(G) ). However, not every "maritime wo......
  • Adams v. All Coast, L.L.C.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • 30 Septiembre 2021
    ...lowered to the seafloor to raise the vessel out of the water and stabilize it for marine operations." Naquin v. Elevating Boats, L.L.C. , 744 F.3d 927, 930 n.1 (5th Cir. 2014) ; see 46 C.F.R. § 90.10–20 ("Liftboat means an offshore supply vessel with moveable legs capable of raising its hul......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 firm's commentaries
  • Fifth Circuit Refines The Test For Seaman Status In Jones Act Claims: Will The Ninth Circuit Follow?
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 24 Agosto 2021
    ...reliance on whether the employee's work exposed him or her to the "perils of the sea." E.g., Naquin v. Elevating Boats, L.L.C., 744 F.3d 927, 934-935 (5th Cir. 2014), overruled by Sanchez, 997 F.3d 564 (evaluating whether the employee was sufficiently exposed to "perils of the sea" when det......
  • Fifth Circuit Refines The Test For Seaman Status In Jones Act Claims: Will The Ninth Circuit Follow?
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 24 Agosto 2021
    ...reliance on whether the employee's work exposed him or her to the "perils of the sea." E.g., Naquin v. Elevating Boats, L.L.C., 744 F.3d 927, 934-935 (5th Cir. 2014), overruled by Sanchez, 997 F.3d 564 (evaluating whether the employee was sufficiently exposed to "perils of the sea" when det......
  • A Change In The Fifth Circuit Seaman Status Test?
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 18 Octubre 2021
    ...of the seaman-status test. In its holding, the Sanchez court expressly overruled the panel decision in Naquin v. Elevating Boats, L.L.C., 744 F.3d 927, 932 (5th Cir. 2014), and also called into question the panel decision in In re Endeavor Marine, Inc., 234 F.3d 287, 291 (5th Cir. 2000) to ......
  • A Change In The Fifth Circuit Seaman Status Test?
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 18 Octubre 2021
    ...of the seaman-status test. In its holding, the Sanchez court expressly overruled the panel decision in Naquin v. Elevating Boats, L.L.C., 744 F.3d 927, 932 (5th Cir. 2014), and also called into question the panel decision in In re Endeavor Marine, Inc., 234 F.3d 287, 291 (5th Cir. 2000) to ......
1 books & journal articles
  • TO LAND AND BACK: A WELDER'S VOYAGE ON A JACK-UP RIG.
    • United States
    • Loyola Maritime Law Journal Vol. 20 No. 1, December 2020
    • 22 Diciembre 2020
    ...(48) Id. (citing Endeavor Marine Corp. v. Crane Operators, Inc., 234 F.3d 287 (5th Cir. 2000)). (49) Naquin v. Elevating Boats, L.L.C., 744 F.3d 927 (5th Cir. (50) Id. at 930. (51) Id. (52) Id. at 930-931. (53) Id. (54) Naquin, 744 F.3d 927, 930-931. (55) Id. at 932. (56) Id. (57) Id. at 93......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT