Champagne v. Chevron U.S. A., Inc., 79-1017
| Decision Date | 02 November 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-1017,79-1017 |
| Parties | Wayne J. CHAMPAGNE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHEVRON U. S. A., INC. (formerly Chevron Oil Co.), Defendant Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HERB'S WELDING, INC., et al., Third-Party Defendants-Appellees, and North-West Ins. Co., Intervenor-Appellee. Summary Calendar. * |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Lloyd C. Melancon, New Orleans, La., for defendant third-party plaintiff-appellant.
Gothard J. Reck, Glen G. Magnuson, Jr., New Orleans, La., for Wayne J. Champagne.
Adams & Reese, George V. Baus, New Orleans, La., for third-party defendants-appellees.
Wiedemann & Fransen, Raul R. Bencomo, New Orleans, La., for Elkhart Brass Mfg. Co., Inc.
Roger J. Larue, Jr., Metairie, La., for intervenor.
Appeal from the United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana.
Before GOLDBERG, RONEY and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.
On February 10, 1975, Wayne J. Champagne was injured while working on a fixed offshore drilling platform owned by Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (Chevron) and located along the Louisiana gulf coast. Champagne was an employee of Herb's Welding, Inc., which had been hired by Chevron to do some welding on the platform. It was Champagne's job to man a fire hose near the spot where the welding was taking place and to put out any fire that might start. The injury occurred while Champagne was testing the hose and nozzle, furnished by Chevron, to ensure that it would function properly. As he was shutting off the water flow, a nut within the nozzle came loose, and a sudden burst of water propelled him forcefully against a guard rail.
Champagne subsequently brought this diversity suit against Chevron and Elkhart Brass Mfg. Co. (Elkhart), the manufacturer of the nozzle, asserting various theories of recovery under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 688 (1976), general maritime law, and Louisiana tort law. In a third-party action Chevron sought full indemnity or contribution from Elkhart. On the eve of trial, Champagne settled with Elkhart for $20,000; the case proceeded to trial on Champagne's claim against Chevron and its third-party claim against Elkhart. The jury returned a $250,000 verdict against Chevron and on the other claim found, in response to the court's interrogatory, that Elkhart had not manufactured the nozzle defectively. Consequently, the court entered judgment for Elkhart on Chevron's third-party claim.
In this appeal Chevron raises three points, only one of which merits discussion. Chevron contends that the district court committed reversible error in charging the jury on the doctrine of strict liability. The case was tried under Louisiana law, without objection, and in instructing the jury on Chevron's standard of conduct the court said:
What rules apply to Mr. Champagne's claim against Chevron? It's a relatively brief instruction, and I ask you to listen quite carefully to it. The owner of an offshore oil well drilling or production platform, such as Chevron in this case has the duty to keep the platform and the equipment which is attached to and forms part of the platform operations in good repair. The fire hose and the nozzle involved in this case are equipment attached to forming part of the operation and the platform and are covered by that instruction. So that Chevron has a duty to keep the platform and the appurtenances, the equipment, including the hoses and nozzles in a state of good repair. As a result of that, Chevron would ordinarily be liable to Mr. Champagne if you find that Mr. Champagne has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he was injured as a result of a defective condition in the hose nozzle, whether the defect was due to a defect in the original design or in the manufacture of the nozzle, or through a neglect to repair it, unless you find that the one exception, which I will discuss with you in a minute, is involved.
And before I give you the exception, I call to your attention that Chevron is not excused from its liability to Mr. Champagne nor to anybody, either by ignorance of a defective condition, they don't know about it, or merely because the defect...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dart v. Brown, 82-3146
...Because Lombard failed, however, to file a cross-appeal on this issue, we are not at liberty to consider it. Champagne v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., 605 F.2d 934, 936 (5th Cir.1979).2 The equal protection clause of the Louisiana Constitution, article 1, section 3, was intended to be a restateme......
-
Coulter v. Texaco, Inc.
...same "appurtenance" issue because of its "widespread ramifications").17 365 So.2d 1285.18 Id. at 1289-1292.19 Champagne v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 605 F.2d 934, 936 (5th Cir.1979).20 Walker v. Tenneco Oil, Co., 615 F.2d at 1124.21 See Steele v. Helmerich & Payne Intern. Drilling Co., 738 F.2d......
-
Hyde v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
...his failure to perform this duty imposed by law upon him." Olsen v. Shell Oil Company, 365 So.2d 1285, 1292 (La.1979). In Champagne v. Chevron, 5 Cir.1979, 605 F.2d 934, this Court, relying on Olsen, held that a defective nozzle on a fire hose used on a drilling platform is "no less an appu......
-
Oliver v. Aminoil, USA, Inc.
...v. Tenneco Oil Co., 615 F.2d 1121 (5th Cir. 1980); Ramos v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 615 F.2d 334 (5th Cir. 1980); Champagne v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 605 F.2d 934 (5th Cir. 1979); Moczygemba v. Danos & Curole Marine Contractors, 561 F.2d 1149 (5th Cir. 1977); McIlwain v. Placid Oil Co., 472 F......