Bourque v. Gulf Marine Transp., Inc.

• Decision Date: 11 December 1985
• Docket Number: No. 84-844,84-844
• Citation: Bourque v. Gulf Marine Transp., Inc., 480 So.2d 337 (La. App. 1985)
• Parties: Harmon BOURQUE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GULF MARINE TRANSPORTATION, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana

Page 337

480 So.2d 337

Harmon BOURQUE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GULF MARINE TRANSPORTATION, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 84-844.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana Third Circuit.

Dec. 11, 1985.

Lloyd C. Melancon, New Orleans, Woodley & Associates, Clayton Davis, Lake Charles, for defendants-appellants.

Raleigh Newman, Lake Charles, for plaintiff-appellee.

Raymond Jackson of McBride & Foret, Lafayette, for defendant-appellee.

Before DOMENGEAUX, LABORDE and KNOLL, JJ.

KNOLL, Judge.

Chevron U.S.A. Inc. (hereafter Chevron), Gulf Marine Transportation, Inc., (hereafter Gulf Marine), Cameron Crewboats, Inc. (hereafter Cameron), and American Home Assurance Company (hereafter American), the insurer of Gulf Marine and Cameron, appeal a jury verdict in favor of Harmon Bourque for medical expenses, past and future lost wages, pain and suffering, and disability. Chevron contends: (1) there was no evidence showing that any act or omission by it or any defect, deficiency or ruin in its platform caused or contributed to Bourque's injuries; (2) in the alternative, the jury's allocation of fault between Chevron and Gulf Marine was not supported by the evidence; (3) the trial court erred in refusing to award it attorney's fees, costs incurred in defending this action and for indemnity from Gulf Marine and American; and (4) the trial court erred in denying its motion for a new trial because the jury's answers to special interrogatories were irreconcilably inconsistent. Gulf Marine, Cameron and American contend: (1) there was no evidence that their vessel, the M/V Pete McCall, or its crew, was the cause of Bourque's injuries; (2) the jury erred in failing to find Bourque contributorily negligent; and (3) the jury awards for future lost wages and disability were excessive and not supported by the record. Furthermore, appellants all argue that the trial court erred in denying their motions for a mistrial because of prejudicial and improper comments made by Bourque's attorney in closing argument. We affirm.

FACTS

Bourque sustained an injury one hundred miles offshore in the Gulf of Mexico when he attempted to transfer from the M/V Pete McCall to a Chevron platform. The Pete McCall was under time charter from Gulf Marine to Chevron. Bourque was employed as a welder for Danos and Curole Marine Contractors, Inc. (hereafter Danos).

Bourque and his father were unloading supplies and their welding equipment onto the platform and a standby boat. When they were finished, the captain of the Pete McCall positioned the vessel's stern against a ladder which extended from the landing platform down to the water. When Bourque attempted his transfer from the stern of the vessel to the platform's ladder, the Pete McCall rose in the waves crushing his right knee and thigh between the vessel's stern bumper tires and the platform's wooden beams which protected the ladder.

Bourque sued Gulf Marine and Chevron, asserting negligence claims against both, as well as a strict liability claim against Chevron. Chevron filed a third party demand against Gulf Marine, Cameron, Danos and their insurers seeking defense and indemnity for Bourque's claim. Danos filed a petition for intervention seeking reimbursement for the workmen's compensation and medical expenses it paid Bourque.

The jury awarded Bourque $118,562 and allocated fault for the accident in the proportion of 25% to Gulf Marine and 75% to Chevron. Further, Danos was granted its claim for reimbursement, and the third party claims of Chevron against Gulf Marine, Cameron, Danos and their insurers were denied.

LIABILITY AND ALLOCATION OF FAULT

Chevron and Gulf Marine argue that the trial court erred in denying their motions for a directed verdict, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and new trial. Each contend that Bourque failed to show any act of negligence on their individual part and failed to prove any "ruin" on the Chevron platform but that the other was the sole cause of Bourque's damages. Because of the posture of their arguments, we will address in order the question of possible inconsistency of the jury verdict, liability of the parties, contributory negligence of Bourque and the jury's allocation of fault.

Chevron contends that the jury's responses to verdict interrogatories one and seven are irreconcilably inconsistent and require either a remand of the case for a new trial or our independent appellate review of the questions of liability. We disagree.

Before a jury's response to a verdict interrogatory may be struck down there must be a determination that the responses are inconsistent with the general verdict. Andrepont v. Naquin, 345 So.2d 1216 (La.App. 1st Cir.1977). The verdict sheet provided as follows:

"VERDICT SHEET

1. Was Gulf Marine Transportation, Inc. negligent in connection with the plaintiff's accident and, if so, was this negligence a legal cause of the plaintiff's injuries?

YES X NO

2. Was Chevron U.S.A., Inc. negligent in connection with the plaintiff's accident and, if so, was this negligence a legal cause of the plaintiff's injuries?

YES X NO

3. Was Danos & Curole Marine Contractors, Inc. negligent in connection with the plaintiff's accident and, if so, was this negligence a legal cause of the plaintiff's injuries?

YES NO X

4. Was there a defect present in Chevron's Platform 564A posing an unreasonable risk of harm and, if so, was this defect a legal cause of the plaintiff's injuries?

YES X NO

If your answer to all of the above is "no", proceed no further. If your answer to any of the above is "yes", proceed to the next question.

5. Was the plaintiff, Harmon Bourque, negligent in connection with his accident and, if so, was his negligence a legal cause of his injuries?

YES NO X

6. To what extent, if any, was each of the parties at fault for the accident?

gulf marine        25 % chevron     75 % danos & curole      0 % harmon     0 %
                  transportation,         u.s.a.,          marine                  bourque
                  inc.                    inc.             contractors,
                                                           inc.
                

7. Did the accident arise out of and occur in connection with the management, navigation and operation of the M/V PETE McCall?

YES NO X

8. What damages did the plaintiff suffer as a result of his accident(s)?

SPECIAL DAMAGES:
                ----------------
                   Medical Expenses       $ 1562.00
                                          ---------------
                   Past Wages             $ 10,000.00
                                          ---------------
                   Future Wages           $ 72,000.00
                                          ---------------
                   Other (specify)------
                   ---------------------
                                          $
                   ---------------------
                GENERAL DAMAGES:
                ----------------
                   Pain & Suffering       $ 5,000.00
                                          ---------------
                   Disability             $ 30,000.00 "
                                          ---------------
                

The alleged inconsistency between the answers to interrogatories one and seven was not called to the attention of the trial court at the reading of the verdict nor alluded to in any of Chevron's post-trial motions. By failing to object at the reading of the verdict or afterward, the trial court neither had the opportunity to address this issue nor take remedial action as provided in LSA-C.C.P. Art. 1813(C). In the absence of an objection properly raised in the trial court Chevron cannot now be heard on this issue.

After hearing all the evidence, the jury concluded that Chevron and Gulf Marine were negligent in causing Bourque's injuries and absolved Bourque from any fault in connection with the accident. Before an appellate court may overturn the findings of a jury, it must be determined that the jury's findings were clearly wrong. Arceneaux v. Domingue, 365 So.2d 1330 (La.1978).

The Gulf Marine vessel and the Chevron platform had correlative duties to provide Bourque with a safe means of egress and ingress. The evidence preponderates that the seas were uneven and moderately rough. Bourque had only one available means of transfering from the vessel to the platform: he had to exit from the stern of the vessel, timing his leap to coincide with the peaks of the sea swells, to a ladder which extended from the landing platform down to the water, and then climb the ladder to the landing area. The ladder was recessed between 12 X 12 inch wooden beams to protect it from damage.

Bourque presented several allegations which formed the basis of the jury's imposition of liability on Chevron. The Chevron platform posed an unusual risk because its landing area was located well above the water line; a rope, which is usually available to help a person transfer to the landing, was frayed and too short to provide assistance; and the wooden beams which protected the ladder were splintered and may have caused Bourque to become hung up as he attempted the transfer. In addition Chevron stipulated that there was no personnel basket on the platform to help transfer workers from the vessel to the platform in rough seas.

Gulf Marine's liability was likewise premised on a variety of allegations proven at trial which are: Gulf Marine's captain failed to securely position the vessel against the platform in moderate to rough seas, thus making Bourque's transfer more difficult; a large cargo box obstructed the captain's view of Bourque as he attempted to transfer, and prevented him from learning of Bourque's plight as soon as difficulties arose; and, furthermore, considering the conditions at sea, the captain neither attempted to dock the vessel in an alternative position to permit a direct transfer to the landing nor radioed personnel on the Chevron platform to assist Bourque at the landing.

After thoroughly reviewing the record, we cannot say that the jury committed manifest error in finding Chevron and Gulf Marine liable for Bourque's injuries.

Gulf Marine also argues that the jury erred in failing to find Bourque contributorily negligent. Contributory negligence is a question of fact...