Crane v. Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc.
Citation | 743 So.2d 780 |
Decision Date | 15 September 1999 |
Docket Number | No. 99-CA-166.,99-CA-166. |
Parties | Calvin CRANE v. DIAMOND OFFSHORE DRILLING, INC. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US) |
Lawrence D. Wiedemann, John H. Denenea, Jr., New Orleans, Louisiana, Attorneys for Appellee.
Richard A. Chopin, John S. Bair, Metairie, Louisiana, Robert Grant, Nelson Wagar, Gretna, Louisiana, Attorneys for Appellant.
Panel composed of Judges H. CHARLES GAUDIN, CHARLES GRISBAUM, Jr. and MARION F. EDWARDS.
Defendants Diamond Offshore Management Company and Diamond Offshore United Kingdom ("Diamond") appeal a judgment of the district court in favor of plaintiff Calvin Crane. For the reasons to follow we affirm the judgment of the trial court, except with regard to the imposition of pre-judgment interest on this maritime case.
If the pipe is full of mud, a five foot long collar known as a mud bucket is used. The driller picks up the pipe and lets the mud drain into the bucket and out of an attached hose. It takes two men to put the bucket on while the third man rolls the iron roughneck out of the way. Once the bucket is finished, two men grab the hanging pipe while the third man gets the bucket and hose out of the way. A slug is heavier weighted mud pumped into a drill pipe that causes the mud in the pipe to fall down a string as the pipe is pulled out of the hole, eliminating the need for a mud bucket. In this case, the plug was apparently inadequate and the string was wet, necessitating the bucket.
At the time of the accident there was mud on the rig floor and Crane braced his foot against the iron roughneck track, pushing an 1800 pound strand of pipe. Culliford testified that he tripped over the hose attached to the mud bucket. At some point during the process the pipe strand whipped back on plaintiff, "crunching" him up. When plaintiff tried to stand up, his back was hurting.
He worked the next day, went home and began seeking medical attention. He consulted several doctors who diagnosed a lumbar strain or sprain. However, plaintiff received no major relief to his back pain until he saw Dr. John Watermeier. Dr. Watermeier performed surgery, following which surgery plaintiff's symptoms improved vastly.
Plaintiff filed suit against defendants under the Jones Act and general maritime law. Following trial, the court found Jones Act negligence on the part of Diamond and found the vessel OCEAN ALLIANCE, upon which plaintiff was a crew member, to be unseaworthy. No negligence on the part of plaintiff was found. The judgment awarded plaintiff $799,255.00 in damages, broken down as follows: $150,000.00 for past and future physical pain and suffering, past and future mental anguish, and physical disability; $149,470.00 in past lost wages; $453, 923.00 for future loss of income and fringe benefits; and $45,862.00 in past medical expenses. Pre-judgment interest was granted on the entire judgment from the date of judicial demand.
Defendant contends that the trial court applied the pre-Gautreaux standard of care in ruling that it was negligent under the Jones Act, and in allocating no fault to the plaintiff for bracing his foot while manually tailing the pipe. Gautreaux v. Scurlock Marine, Inc., 107 F.3d 331 (5th Cir. 1997), held that a Jones Act seaman is required to act as a reasonable seaman under like circumstances and that a Jones Act employer is required to act as a reasonable employer under like circumstances. See Vendetto v. Sonat Offshore Drilling Co., 97-3103 (La.1/20/99), 725 So.2d 474.
In the revised reasons for judgment, the court made the following specific findings of fact:
Louisiana courts of appeal should apply the manifest error...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Flueras v. Cruises
...Daughdrill, 709 F.Supp. at 712; Mitola, 839 F.Supp. at 358; Crane v. Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc., 99–166 (La.App. 5 Cir. 9/15/99); 743 So.2d 780, 790. To facilitate the determination of condition versus isolated act, courts have made two important observations: first, an act is instanta......
-
Edwards v. Daugherty
......22:655(D); Marcus v. Hanover Ins. Co. Inc., 98-2040 (La.6/4/99), 740 So.2d 603, 606 . Given this .... In Milstead v. Diamond M Offshore, Inc., 95-2446 (La.7/2/96), 676 So.2d 89, this ... Williams v. Reading & Bates Drilling Co., 750 F.2d 487, 491 (5th Cir.1985) .[ 20 ] An award of ...5 Cir. 4/29/03), 846 So.2d 145 ; Crane v. Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc., 99-166 (La.App. 5 Cir. ......
-
Younce v. Pacific Gulf Marine, Inc.
......Cole testified that it is the crane (winch) operator's duty to make sure that all deck crew are safely away ... Domonter, 99-1204 at 5, 761 So.2d at 634 ; Crane v. Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc., 99-166, at 9 (La.App. 5 Cir. 9/15/99), 743 So.2d ......
-
Domonter v. CF Bean Corp.
...... Prejean v. Industrial Cleanup, Inc"., 98-0948 (La.12/1/98), 721 So.2d 1273 . . \xC2"...Sonat Offshore Drilling Co., 97-3103 (La.1/20/99); 725 So.2d 474, 482 ; ... Crane v. Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc., 99-166 (La.App. 5th ......