Law v. Sea Drilling Corp.
| Decision Date | 21 March 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 30657,30657 |
| Citation | 1977 A.M.C. 2379,510 F.2d 242 |
| Parties | Mrs. Joan Francis LAW, personal representative of the Estate of Wesley J. Law, Sr., etc., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. SEA DRILLING CORPORATION and Continental Oil Corporation, Defendants-Appellants. Thomas J. LeBEOUF, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SEA DRILLING CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
A. R. Christovich, Jr., New Orleans, La., for Sea Drilling Corp.
Donald V. Organ, Joy S. Miller, New Orleans, La., for Continental Oil Corp. (Conoco).
Kenneth W. Manuel, John R. Martzell, New Orleans, La., for Joan F. Law.
Philip E. Henderson, Robert L. Morris, Houma, La., for Thomas J. LeBeouf.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Before BROWN, Chief Judge, GEWIN and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.
Wesley Law and Thomas LeBeouf, employees of a service contractor, stood on the ramp running from a seagoing tender vessel to the fixed platform on the Outer Continental Shelf. The ramp--ominously, gruesomely but accurately for this case described as a 'widow maker'--broke, precipitating both into the sea with severe injuries to Law which brought about his death within the hour. Precipitated as well were many intricate questions of law, not the least of which was what law controls? Surrogate law 1 of Louisiana, the adjacent state? Federal statutory law in the form of Death on the High Seas Act 2 (DOHSA)? Or general maritime law under enlightened principles which freed the Supreme Court of the death hand--indeed more accurately the no death hand--of the Nineteenth Century? 3 Time, tide and the incessant grist from the judicial mill and, most important, from the highest mill 4 have washed out most of these problems since the distinction between the competing bodies of law pertain finally only to items of damages on which all sources now coalesce. 5
Continental Oil Corporation (Conoco) and Sea Drilling Corporation (Seadrill) appeal from the judgment of the District Court holding them jointly liable for the death of Wesley Law and the injury to Thomas LeBeouf that arose from that accident. The trial judge determined there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate that each was 'actively' negligent and assessed damages, some jointly, and some allocable separately under the respective applicable laws--Conoco under the Louisiana surrogate Rodrique law and Seadrill under DOHSA. Each attacks the decision that they were each actively negligent and then, with a magnanimity characteristic of the typical Tinker-to-Evers to-Chance donneybrook each seeks to lay the whole off onto the other on all of the theories--contractual, land-based, maritime or ambiguous amphibious--of indemnity and contribution. We affirm the disallowance of reciprocal cross-claims for indemnity and with modification as to the allocation between the tortfeasors of the award to the plaintiffs except we reverse one issue--the appropriateness of permitting the recovery for future cost of living increases.
Wesley Law was killed and Thomas LeBeouf was injured when the ramp on which they were working collapsed, crushing Law and hurling them both into the Gulf swells below.
On the date of the accident this particular fixed platform, designated CATC--EC--63--B (63--B), was one of many owned and maintained by Conoco on the Outer Continental Shelf area of the Gulf of Mexico. Pursuant to its contract, Seadrill agreed for a year to drill wells from several of these platforms and to provide for this purpose its own drilling rig and an LST-type tender vessel, SEADRILL XI, with its equipment, including a steel ramp. This ramp had to be adapted to the existing ramp support structure of Conoco's platform. This structure had been designed in 1956 by Brown & Root in cooperation with Conoco to specifically accommodate the ramp systems of tender vessels owned by Conoco itself. These earlier Conoco ramps were far lighter in weight and were so designed that the vessel-end of the ramp was suspended from the platform by cables, thus eliminating any contact with the vessel and potential single, double or triple dimension stresses from vessel movement.
By contrast, the Seadrill ramp assembly system did contact the vessel directly. In addition, it was designed to rest the entire weight of the platform-end of the ramp on the platform ramp support by the use of a linkage known as a fifth wheel. This fifth wheel, approximately 6 feet by 6 feet and 4 feet high, functions somewhat like a trailer hitch. The combined linkage at the ramp platformend and the fifth wheel permits only lateral motion but not other motions from the roll and pitch of the vessel.
To accommodate the fifth wheel, the 63--B platform support beams had to be extended beyond the vertical column support system. According to the testimony of Seadrill employees, the need for this extension was called to the attention of the Conoco employee in charge of supervising the loading operation. Together employees of both companies agreed that a 17 inch extension should be welded to the ramp support. Then, without the benefits of engineering advice or any apparent consideration of the effects of this extension on an already overloaded ramp support, 6 Seadrill employees welded the extension and, lastly, the fifth wheel in place. The following day a tool pusher for Seadrill noticed lateral play in the ramp support and ordered that additional lateral supports be installed.
On the next day, Law and LeBeouf, employees of Superior Casing Crews, the company that had contracted to drive the surface casing in the well being drilled, were working on the platform. A 6 ton diesel hammer required to drive the surface casing had been offloaded onto SEADRILL XI from an equipment barge earlier that day. The procedure was to lift the hammer from the deck of SEADRILL XI, lower it onto the ramp, remove the shackles from the vessel crane, connect the shackles from the platform crane, lift it and then swing it over and onto the platform. While Law--the supervisor of the crew, LeBeouf, and a third Superior worker were on the ramp in the process of removing the shackles from SEADRILL XI's crane and detaching the lead from the platform crane to the diesel hammer, the ramp support on which the fifth wheel rested collapsed.
Law received crushing blows to his pelvic area and died 30 minutes to an hour later on board the SEADRILL XI after a prolonged and difficult rescue. Thomas LeBeouf, in shock and in pain from his left shoulder throughout his arm, suffered a respiratory infection from the salt water but was able to return to work about two weeks later.
Joan Law, as personal representative of the estate of Wesley Law, brought this action on her own behalf and that of her three minor children alleging negligence and unseaworthiness against Seadrill, negligence against Conoco invoking the wrongful death provisions of the Louisiana code, 7 DOHSA and general maritime principles. On an extensive evidentiary record, the District Judge found that each was negligent, the SEADRILL XI was unseaworthy and held them both liable jointly and in solido. The Court awarded $191,388.55 against both with separate additional recoveries of $70,000.00 against Conoco and $24,000.00 against Seadrill. (See note 19, infra).
The defendants cross swords on appeal first and foremost over the issue of whether their actions were individually negligent. Failing vis-a-vis the victims, each would then seek to shift the taint of negligence and its monetary burden to the other under any one or more or all of three theories: (i) Tri-State 8 active-passive-major-minor tort indemnity principles, (ii) breach of the Ryan 9 WWLP warranty, 10 and (iii) contractual indemnity in the drilling contract. However, after a full review of the transcript, we are convinced that the finding of active negligence by both defendants is adequately supported by the evidence.
A brief description of the drilling procedure followed by both pursuant to their contract demonstrates their individual culpability and hence joint liability for this tragedy. The fault of Conoco lay in its failure to fulfill its supervisory responsibilities over the equipment transfer procedure of which the ramp installation was a major part. On two prior occasions Conoco had employed the same tender vessel and equipment to drill wells from its platforms. Both times its engineering department ascertained the requirements of the rig and modified the platform to fit Seadrill's equipment. Although both platforms lacked any ramp support and therefore required obvious alterations, unlike platform 63--B here, the Judge could find that Conoco was aware of the design and weight limitations of platform 63--B and the peculiar needs of the fifth wheel design of the SEADRILL XI ramp but failed to coordinate this knowledge among its various departments.
While there was no specific inspection procedure called for under the contract requiring Conoco's engineering department to check the ramp system, Conoco bore full responsibility for supervising the rigging operations and it provided a man at the job site for this purpose. 11 There was testimony that the trial judge could credit fully showing that this Conoco supervisor agreed to the ramp extension which further weakened the already overstrained support structure. 12
In short, there was ample basis for the Judge's finding that Conoco was negligent in each of the respects listed. 13
While the fault of Seadrill differs from that of Conoco, it is clear that its employees on the job site also made crucial decisions that contributed directly to the accident. Seadrill employees were the first to recognize that modifications would be necessary to enable the platform support to accommodate their ramp. Despite their own lack of engineering knowledge, they did not consult Conoco's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Guyton v. Phillips
...survival action have included pain and suffering as an element of recovery. Barbe v. Drummond, 507 F.2d 794 (1st Cir. 1974); Law v. Sea Drilling Corp., 510 F.2d 242, rehearing denied, 523 F.2d 793 (5th Cir. 1975). Consideration was given to the deficiencies of federal and state statutory pr......
-
Martinez v. Dixie Carriers, Inc.
...e.g., Usner v. Luckenbach Overseas Corp., 400 U.S. 494, 499, 91 S.Ct. 514, 517--18, 27 L.Ed.2d 562, 567 (1971); Law v. Sea Drilling Corp., 5 Cir., 1975, 510 F.2d 242, 248; Grigsby v. Coastal Marine Service of Texas, Inc., 5 Cir., 1969, 412 F.2d 1011, 1031--32, cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1033, 9......
-
Thompson v. Offshore Co.
...§ 688, the Death on the High Seas Act, 46 U.S.C. §§ 761 et seq. (hereinafter "DOHSA") and the general maritime law. Law v. Sea Drilling Corp., 510 F.2d 242, 250 (5th Cir.), aff'd on rehearing, 523 F.2d 793 (5th Cir. 1975). But see Barbe v. Drummond, 507 F.2d 794, 801 (1st Cir. 1974) (genera......
-
Higginbotham v. Mobil Oil Corp.
...from 1946 to 1969; and was the rate of annual increases which had held good from the year 1900. 510 F.2d at 238. In Law v. Sea Drilling Corp., 5 Cir. 1975, 510 F.2d 242, the court similarly characterized this Cost of living increases and inflation would cause an increase in loss of income f......
-
Mobil Oil Corp. v. Higginbotham-confusion Returns to Maritime Wrongful Death Actions
...Oil Corp., 545 F.2d 422, 435-36 (5th Cir. 1977). In reaching this conclusion the court of appeals relied on Law v. Sea Drilling Corp., 510 F.2d 242, rehearing denied, 523 F.2d 793 (5th Cir. 1975), which in turn relied on two Supreme Court cases, Sea-Land Servs., Inc. v. Gaudet, 414 U.S. 573......
-
PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN MARITIME BEFORE AND IN THE WAKE OF BATTERTON: THE FUTURE.
...Oil Corp., 545 F.2d 422, 435 (5th Cir. 1977). (108) Id. at 435-436. (109) 545 F.2d at 435 (quoting Law v. Sea Drilling Co., 5 Cir. 1975, 510 F.2d 242, 250, reh. denied, modified in part, 523 F.2d 793 (5th Cir. 1975)). Judge Brown of the Fifth Circuit as author of the opinion on rehearing in......