Martin v. G & A Ltd., I
| Decision Date | 10 August 1988 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
| Parties | Mr. and Mrs. Bobby R. MARTIN, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. G & A LIMITED, I, A Limited Partnership (Co. I, Rigs I & II); Aban/Loyd/Chiles, a Joint Venture; Chiles-Alexander Offshore, Inc., Griffen-Alexander Drilling Co.; National Union Assurance Co. (AIG); National Union Fire Insurance Co. & Underwriters at Lloyd's London; [G & A Contract Services, Inc., William E. Chiles, Paul Loyd, the United Kingdom Mutual Steam Ship Assurance Association (Bermuda), Limited (First Amd. Pet. Filed on Behalf of Plaintiff |
Uhalt & Rack, Gothard J. Reck, New Orleans, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Preis, Kraft & Daigle, Edwin Preis and D.C. Panagiotis, Lafayette, for plaintiff-appellee G & A Ltd.
Rice, Fowler, Kingsmill, Vance, Flint & Booth, Winston Rice, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee Nat. Union Fire Ins. Co. & Underwriters at Lloyd's London.
Before DOMENGEAUX, C.J., DOUCET, J., and PATIN *, J. Pro Tem.
In this case, the trial judge granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict modifying the jury's award of damages to an injured toolpusher.
For about seven years, the plaintiff, Bobby R. Martin, was employed as a toolpusher by Griffin-Alexander Drilling Co. (Griffin). In April 1987, Chiles-Alexander (Chiles) bought the assets of Griffin. At about the same time as the buy-out, Martin's employment was terminated. It is not clear whether he was employed by Griffin or Chiles at the time of the termination.
Aban/Loyd/Chiles Offshore Ltd. (ALCO) acquired two offshore drilling rigs, G & A II and III, from Griffin. The rigs were loaded on the M/V Transhelf, a merchant vessel of Russian registry, and shipped to India. Martin was rehired by Chiles to go to India to supervise the unloading process and train crews to run the rigs. Martin was initially to work a three-month tour then alternate 28 day tours working in India with 28 days off in the U.S. Martin traveled to India in company with another toolpusher and two rig movers. Two British drilling crews of 7 men each were also expected to help in the offloading process.
They arrived in India in the morning after about 36 hours of travel. They checked into a hotel, rested for several hours, and met with representatives of Chiles and ALCO. At the meeting, they learned that the British crews had not arrived and that they would be expected to offload the rigs with only unskilled Indian labor to help. Weather conditions were worsening. At least one of the men complained to the company representatives about working under those conditions.
The next day, October 2, 1987, the four Americans took a six to eight hour ride in a supply boat to the Russian vessel, arriving in the late afternoon. They began offloading supplies from the supply boat. The normal rig walkways were partially or totally blocked by drilling equipment and supplies loaded on the rig for transport to India.
The four men, although hired for supervisory positions, were required to participate in the manual labor of the offloading process. Martin operated a crane for several hours. Between 7 and 8 p.m., weather conditions worsened. At this time, Martin was looking over a railing on Rig II, checking to be sure that the Indian laborers were setting up welding equipment properly. A severe storm came up suddenly with heavy rain, lightning, and 30-40 mph winds possibly gusting up to 60 miles per hour. Trying to quickly reach shelter in the living quarters on Rig II, Martin ran or rapidly walked across a pipe rack which was loaded with drill pipe and collars. He caught his foot on the collars, tripped, and fell. He immediately began experiencing severe stomach pain.
There was no medical personnel aboard the rigs. The next day, Martin was given injections of an unknown nature by someone from the Russian ship who spoke no English, but was said to be a doctor. ALCO representatives were asked for help but none was rendered. About three days later, Martin was finally evacuated when an Indian TV crew came to film operations and gave him a ride into shore. There, the Indian TV crew made arrangements for Martin to return to the U.S. where he finally received treatment for his injuries.
He underwent immediate surgery to repair an umbilical hernia. Later, he underwent further surgery in the form of a lumbar laminectomy. Chiles paid his salary for six months. Afterwards, Chiles paid maintenance of $25.00 per day. Martin's medical bills were also paid by Chiles.
Back in India, the rig offloading process was delayed for two weeks due to bad weather, at the end of which time the British crews arrived.
Mr. and Mrs. Martin filed suit against Griffin, Chiles and ALCO alleging claims for negligence under the Jones Act and for negligence, unseaworthiness, loss of consortium, and for punitive damages for delay of medical treatment under the general maritime law. After a ten day trial, the jury returned a verdict, finding that:
1) Bobby Martin was a Jones Act seaman;
2) Chiles and ALCO were the Jones Act employers of Martin, and that their negligence was a substantial cause of Martin's injuries;
3) Griffin was negligent under the general maritime law and that the negligence was a substantial cause of Martin's injuries;
4) Martin was comparatively negligent; and
5) That the Jones Act employers arbitrarily delayed necessary medical treatment.
The jury apportioned 40% of the fault to Martin and 20% each to Chiles, Griffin and ALCO.
Damages were awarded as follows
1) Past, present and future pain and suffering $100,000.00
2) Permanent Disability 200,000.00
3) Future medical 200,000.00
4) Past lost wages 70,000.00
5) Loss of future earning capacity 200,000.00
6) Damages for delay of treatment 120,000.00
7) Loss of consortium to Susan Martin 50,000.00
----------
Judgment was entered reflecting the jury verdict plus pre-judgment interest of $37,740.00.
The defendants filed motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, new trial, and/or remittitur. The Martins moved to modify the judgment to include pre-judgment interest on the awards for pre-judgment damages, loss of consortium, and punitive damages. The trial court denied the Martin's motion but granted a JNOV modifying the jury awards as follows:
1) Permanent disability was reduced to $100,000.00;
2) Loss of consortium was reduced to $30,000.00; and
3) Damages for future medical and delay of treatment were eliminated.
The Martins appeal, essentially arguing that the defendants' motion for JNOV should not have been granted. The defendants answered the appeal arguing that the trial court did not go far enough in modifying the jury award. They argue that the trial judge should have found that Martin was not a Jones Act seaman, that Martin was entirely at fault for his own injuries, and that Martin's hernia was not related to the accident. Defendants further argue that no prejudgment interest should have been awarded. Alternatively, defendants argue that they are entitled to a new trial because of prejudicial remarks made by plaintiff's counsel during closing arguments.
A trial court may grant a JNOV only when the evidence points so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of the moving party that reasonable men could not reach a contrary verdict. If there is substantial evidence opposed to the motion: i.e. evidence of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair-minded men in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions, the motion must be denied. Scott v. Hosp. Serv. Dist. No. 1, 496 So.2d 270 (La.1986). In considering a motion for JNOV, the trial court must construe all evidence and reasonable inferences to be made therefrom in favor of the party opposing the motion. Trans Global Alloy v. First Nat. Bank, 564 So.2d 697 (La.App. 5th Cir.1990); Zeagler v. Dillard Dept. Stores, Inc., 521 So.2d 766 (La.App. 2d Cir.1988). Further, the trial court may not weigh the evidence, pass on credibility of witnesses or substitute its own judgment for that of the jury. Wooten v. Louisiana Power & Light Co., 477 So.2d 1142 (La.App. 1st Cir.1985). Basically, a JNOV can be granted by a trial court only when a jury's verdict is one which reasonable men could not have rendered. Adams v. Security Ins. Co. of Hartford, 543 So.2d 480 (La.1989). The standard to be applied by appellate courts in reviewing the grant of a JNOV is whether the trial court's findings in rendering the JNOV were manifestly erroneous. Stafford v. Unsell, 492 So.2d 94 (La.App. 1st Cir.1986).
Hutchinson v. Wal-Mart, Inc., 573 So.2d 1148, 1151 (La.App. 1st Cir.1990). See also Barnes v. Thames, 578 So.2d 1155 (La.App. 1st Cir.1991), writ denied, 577 So.2d 1009 (La.1991).
The first issue which must be dealt with is whether the jury was correct in finding Martin to be a Jones Act seaman.
The court in Wilkerson v. Teledyne Movible Offshore, Inc., 496 F.Supp. 1279, 1282-1283 (E.D.Tex.1980) stated that:
Only seamen are entitled to the liberal provisions of the Jones Act. 5 Stokes v. B.T. Oilfield Services, Inc., 617 F.2d 1205, 1206 (5th Cir.1980); Wixom v. Boland Marine & Manufacturing Co., Inc., 614 F.2d 956, 957 (5th Cir.1980); Guidry v. South Louisiana Contractors, Inc., 614 F.2d 447, 452 (5th Cir.1980); Longmire v. Sea Drilling Corp., 610 F.2d 1342, 1345 (5th Cir.1980). The Fifth Circuit has defined "seaman" as one who
(1) [has] a more or less permanent connection with (2) a vessel in navigation and (3) the capacity in which he is employed or the duties which he performs must contribute to the function of the vessel, the accomplishment of its mission or its operation or welfare in terms of its maintenance during its movement or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dixon v. Cliffs Drilling Co.
...court in Collins v. Texaco, Inc., 607 So.2d 760 (La.App. 1st Cir.1992); and by other Louisiana appellate courts in Martin v. G & A Ltd., 604 So.2d 1014 (La.App. 3d Cir.), writs denied, 607 So.2d 557 (La.1992); Jenkins v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 613 So.2d 1097 (La.App. 3d Cir.), writs denied, 616 ......
-
Seymour v. Cigna Ins. Co.
...Sider v. Robin Temporary Service, 515 So.2d 1123 (La.App. 5th Cir.1987), writ denied, 519 So.2d 146 (La.1988), and Martin v. G. & A LTD., 604 So.2d 1014 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1992). The Fourth Circuit, in Folse v. Western Atlas Intern., Inc., 580 So.2d 482 (La.App.1991), also held that the injur......
-
Smoot v. Hernandez
...to appeal that is filed more than fifteen days after the return date or date of lodging, whichever is later. Martin v. G. & A Limited, I, 604 So.2d 1014 (La.App. 3 Cir.), writs denied, 607 So.2d 557 (La.1992). For the foregoing reasons, we find that Ms. Smoot's answer to appeal seeking a mo......
-
Kelly v. Boise Building Solutions
...to appeal that is filed more than fifteen days after the return date or date of lodging, whichever is later. Martin v. G. & A Limited, I, 604 So.2d 1014 (La.App. 3 Cir.), writs denied,607 So.2d 557 (La.1992). For the foregoing reasons, we find that Ms. Smoot's answer to appeal seeking a mod......