Spinks v. Chevron Oil Co., 73-3618
| Decision Date | 03 February 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 73-3618,73-3618 |
| Citation | 546 F.2d 675 |
| Parties | Donnie E. SPINKS, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross Appellee, v. CHEVRON OIL COMPANY and Barge Facilities, Inc., Defendants Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross Appellants, Labor Services, Inc., et al., Third-Party Defendants-Appellees-Cross Appellants. Donnie E. SPINKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LABOR SERVICES, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Donnie E. SPINKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LABOR SERVICES, INC., Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Philip E. Henderson, Houma, La., for plaintiff-appellant-cross appellee.
Lloyd C. Melancon, Joel L. Borrello, New Orleans, La., for Chevron Oil Co.
Tom F. Phillips, John R. Tharp, Baton Rouge, La., for Labor Services, and others.
James H. Drury, New Orleans, La., for Surplus Lines Ins.
T. C. W. Ellis, New Orleans, La., for Steamship Mut., etc.
Donald M. Pierce, Donald V. Organ, New Orleans, La., for Seguros American Banamex.
Lawrence D. Wiedemann, New Orleans, La., for Welch Sales & Serv.
Before RIVES, WISDOM and COLEMAN, Circuit Judges.
IT IS ORDERED that the motion of Chevron Oil Company for clarification of the opinion is GRANTED.
At that time we used the term "reconsideration" because we were hopeful that the dispute might be resolved without the necessity of a new trial. Now, on reflection and in the interests of justice, we conclude that the trial judge may exercise his discretion (1) to reconsider the issues without a new trial or (2) to conduct a trial on the existing record with such additional evidence as he may regard as material and pertinent to the issues raised in or as a result of the appeal or (3) to retry the case totally, if none of the parties is prejudiced by the judicial delays inherent in the appellate process involving a difficult case or a result of this Court's failure to act more quickly on the motion for clarification. By prejudice we mean, for example, the death or unavailability of a key witness.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morris v. Massachusetts Maritime Academy
...v. Cerqueira, 828 F.2d 863 (1st Cir.1987); Spinks v. Chevron Oil Co., 507 F.2d 216 (5th Cir.1975), clarified on other grounds, 546 F.2d 675 (5th Cir.1977); 2 M. Norris, Law of Seamen § 30:14 (4th ed. 1985). The employer need not be the owner or operator of the ship, and a plaintiff may have......
-
Sheffield v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp.
...F.2d 968, 977 (5th Cir.1978); Spinks v. Chevron Oil Co., 507 F.2d 216, 222, 222 n. 8 (5th Cir.1975), clarified on other grounds, 546 F.2d 675 (5th Cir.1977). The general tort law to which the admiralty courts often look for the substantive standards of proof of causation is the Restatement ......
-
Bobo v. Tenn. Valley Auth., Civil Action No. CV 12-S-1930-NE
...F.2d 968, 977 (5th Cir.1978); Spinks v. Chevron Oil Co. , 507 F.2d 216, 222, 222 n. 8 (5th Cir.1975), clarified on other grounds , 546 F.2d 675 (5th Cir.1977). The general tort law to which the admiralty courts often look for the substantive standards of proof of causation is theRestatement......
-
Hae Woo Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 91-CA-407
...T.L. James & Co., supra, 666 F.2d at 300 [5th Cir.1982]; Spinks v. Chevron Oil Co., 507 F.2d 216, 223 (5th Cir.1975), clarified, 546 F.2d 675 (5th Cir.1977) ('His duty is to do the work assigned, not to find the safest method of work'). Rather, the duty to provide for a safe course of condu......