Robichaux v. Kerr McGee Oil Industries, Inc.
| Citation | 376 F.2d 447 |
| Decision Date | 12 June 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 23273.,23273. |
| Parties | Hugh A. ROBICHAUX, Appellant, v. KERR McGEE OIL INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellee. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
Roland J. Sternfels, George J. Garzotto, Sternfels, Garzotto & Slavich, New Orleans, La., for appellant.
Robert E. Leake, Jr., Hammett, Leake & Hammett, New Orleans, La., for appellee.
Before GEWIN and GOLDBERG, Circuit Judges, and SPEARS, District Judge.
This suit was brought by appellant against the appellee for injuries received while he was working on a drilling barge stationed in the Gulf of Mexico off the Louisiana coast. Sladco, Inc., which was not a party to this suit, had been employed by appellee to remove approximately 2500 feet of casing from an oil well. Each section of casing was 47 feet long. All persons engaged in the removal operation, including appellant, were employees of Sladco, except the driller, who was employed by appellee. Appellant was working as a stabber on the stabbing platform, located 45 feet above the drilling deck.
In order to remove casing from this oil well, elevators were attached to one end of the casing, and a section of the casing was raised until the next section was visible. Then the spider was set which kept the casing from slipping back into the well. The stabber then removed the elevators, and waved to the driller, who raised the elevators out of the way, and a three-man crew fastened break-out tongs to the casing. The driller then applied the break-out cat head, which was used to unscrew a joint of casing. The loosened joint was then stacked, and the elevators were lowered so that the next joint could be pulled out of the well, and the process repeated. Appellant was injured when the top of a joint, from which he had removed the elevators, whipped toward him and hit him in the head. Fortunately, he was wearing a protective helmet, and his head was not seriously hurt, but the blow resulted in an injury to his knee.
The case was tried to the court without a jury. After hearing all of the evidence, the court filed findings of fact and conclusions of law, in which he concluded that appellant had failed to establish by a preponderance of evidence that the appellee, or anyone for whose conduct it was responsible, was negligent in any manner proximately causing the injuries.
Among other things, appellant alleged that his injuries were caused .
Although the district court, at the conclusion of the trial, quotes appellant's counsel as stating in Chambers that "the element of unseaworthiness * * * really does not enter into this picture, although it is covered by the pleadings", counsel insists in his brief that he neither abandoned that claim, nor intended to give the court that impression, but "merely informed the court that it was impossible to delineate what evidence would be offered to prove unseaworthiness, and that it would be necessary to await the reception of testimony before any such breach of duty could be specified with particularity". The argument is then made that "the vessel was unseaworthy, either in not being provided with reasonably safe equipment and appliances for the purpose of breaking out joints of casings, or in having an improperly installed spider in the rotary table, and that this unseaworthy condition caused the joint of casing to whip, striking appellant and causing his injury".
The district court observed that the spider slipped, "because the string of casing below it was no longer of sufficient weight to hold it in place in the rotary table, or * * * it was improperly installed in the rotary table in the first place", and concluded that both such functions were performed by the members of the casing crew to which the complainant belonged.
In the formal findings of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Earles v. Union Barge Line Corporation, 72-1313
...145, 19 L.Ed.2d 146 (1967) (cause of accident was concurrent negligence of plaintiff and co-worker). Accord, Robichaux v. Kerr McGee Oil Indus. Inc., 376 F.2d 447 (5th Cir. 1967). Although Mascuilli v. United States, 387 U.S. 237, 87 S.Ct. 1705, 18 L.Ed.2d 743 (1967) created confusion in so......
-
Candiano v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc.
...the Fifth Circuit on April 13, 1967 had decided Antoine v. Lake Charles Stevedores, Inc., 376 F.2d 443 and Robichaux v. Kerr McGee Oil Industries, Inc., 376 F.2d 447. In Antoine, the plaintiff was injured when pinned against the side of the ship by a load being lowered into the hold. The tr......
-
Grigsby v. Coastal Marine Service of Texas, Inc.
...a time, sequential limitation, otherwise the contractor's conduct creates "instant unseaworthiness" as to which our subsequent Antoine and Robichaux40 cases deny vessel liability. With like simplicity, the argument of the claimants merely anticipated in point of time that which can now be c......
-
Hebert v. California Oil Company
...378 F.2d 271; Antoine v. Lake Charles Stevedores, Inc., et al., 5 Cir. April 13, 1967, 376 F.2d 443; Robichaux v. Kerr McGee Oil Industries, Inc., 5 Cir. April 13, 1967, 376 F.2d 447, and authorities therein cited and discussed. 2 We pretermit entirely the questions of (1) whether or not a ......