McBride v. Loffland Brothers Company
| Decision Date | 30 March 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 27936.,27936. |
| Citation | 422 F.2d 363 |
| Parties | Robert A. McBRIDE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOFFLAND BROTHERS COMPANY and Travelers Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
J. Minos Simon, Lafayette, La., for plaintiff-appellant.
Tom F. Phillips, Baton Rouge, La., for defendants-appellees; Taylor, Porter, Brooks, Fuller & Phillips, Baton Rouge, La., of counsel.
Before AINSWORTH, DYER and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges.
The principal question presented on this appeal from a jury verdict in this Jones Act (Title 46, U.S.C., Section 688) case is whether there was evidence to support the jury's finding that the appellant was contributorily negligent1 to the extent of fifty percent. If there was not, the district court should have granted appellant's motion for judgment n.o.v. We affirm.
McBride was injured while working as a roustabout on an offshore drilling rig, "Ocean Master No. 1". It was stipulated by the parties that "Ocean Master No. 1" was a vessel and that McBride was a seaman as contemplated by the Jones Act. He slipped and was injured while assisting in the removal of drill pipe sections from the ocean floor and their storage in a pipe rack on the deck.2 McBride slipped and fell hard on his buttock upon the catwalk which was caked with drilling mud, chemicals and sea water coming off the pipes as they were removed from the drilling hole. The medical testimony warranted a conclusion by the jury that the catwalk accident caused McBride's back injury.
Suit was brought for negligence under the Jones Act and for unseaworthiness. The jury's findings on special verdict were that the vessel was seaworthy, that the owner's negligence was responsible for the plaintiff's injury and that McBride was contributorily negligent to the extent of fifty percent. Since comparative negligence applies equally to both theories of recovery asserted we find it unnecessary to review the appellant's claim that the jury's verdict as to seaworthiness should have been set aside. The basis for the jury's finding that McBride was contributorily negligent appears in the testimony of one of his co-workers, Captain Morgan, who steadfastly asserted that McBride had both a duty and an opportunity (in the form of an available running hose and sufficient time) to hose off the catwalk and keep it free of slippery substances. There is no claim and no evidence that McBride was careless in any other respect. Captain Morgan's testimony was disputed by other co-workers, both as to the availability of hoses and the opportunity to use them during the progress of the job. Nevertheless we conclude that Captain Morgan's testimony presented a jury issue which was resolved by the special verdict. That the rule of Lavender v. Kurn (footnote 1 supra) is usually applied to determine whether a seaman has demonstrated actionable Jones Act negligence on the part of the employer, does not mean that the rule should not apply equally to weighing the sufficiency of the evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Springborn v. American Commercial Barge Lines, Inc.
...same standard whether reviewing findings regarding a defendant's or a plaintiff's negligence.") (Jones Act); McBride v. Loffland Brothers Company, 422 F.2d 363, 365 (5th Cir.1970) ("[W]e can see no reason why the [Lavender ] rule should not operate equally and evenhandedly as to negligence ......
-
Wilkerson v. Teledyne Movible Offshore, Inc.
...in allowing the mats at the top of the stairs to the engine room of Rig 4 to become full of drilling mud. See McBride v. Loffland Brothers Co., 422 F.2d 363, 364 (5th Cir. 1970). Teledyne, therefore, breached its duty to the Plaintiff to provide him with a safe place to work. Ivy v. Securit......
-
Alverez v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc.
...(applying Lavender standard of review to Jones Act case whether jury verdict favors plaintiff or defendant) 6; McBride v. Loffland Brothers Co., 422 F.2d 363, 365 (5th Cir. 1970) (applying Lavender test to sufficiency of evidence of contributory negligence); Page v. St. Louis Southwestern R......
-
Ceja v. Mike Hooks, Inc.
...Supply, Inc., 645 F.2d 477, 481 (5th Cir. 1981); Hlodan v. Ohio Barge Line, Inc., 611 F.2d 71, 74 (5th Cir. 1980); McBride v. Loffland Bros. Co., 422 F.2d 363 (5th Cir. 1970).5 The Bobb panel's cautionary analysis of Mahnich's sweeping language, as limited to its context, can be applied as ......