Texas Company v. Savoie
| Decision Date | 05 February 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 16188.,16188. |
| Citation | 240 F.2d 674 |
| Parties | The TEXAS COMPANY, Appellant, v. Mrs. Marowigne Edna McConnell SAVOIE, Administratrix of the estate of Horace P. Guidry, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Ernest A. Carrere, Jr., New Orleans, La., for appellant.
Jack W. Thomson, Jr., James Julian Coleman, Clay, Coleman, Dutrey & Thomson, New Orleans, for appellee.
Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and HOLMES and BORAH, Circuit Judges.
The appellee, as administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband, brought this suit against the appellant, the decedent's employer, for recovery of damages, under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 688, for the death of her husband, predicating liability upon negligence, while decedent was acting as a member of the crew of the Mary Virginia, a vessel operated and controlled by appellant on Lake Salvadore
The plaintiff alleged that on February the 4th, 1953, at Well No. 20 in Lake Salvadore, the deceased was in the process of opening a valve, which exploded and blew him off the well platform into the water and caused his death. Several grounds of negligence were alleged, among which were that the valve was defective, which fact should have been known to the Texas Company; that the company failed to furnish a sufficient number of competent employees; and failed to furnish a safe place for the decedent to work. In the alternative, plaintiff sought to recover under the Longshoremen's & Harborworkers' Act, 33 U.S.C.A. § 901 et seq., and under the Louisiana Workmen's Compensation Law, LSA-R.S. 23:1021 et seq. These alternatives were reserved by agreement, and are not before the court at this time. The trial below resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff.
The decisive point on this appeal is whether there was substantial evidence to support the jury's finding that decedent was a member of the crew of the Mary Virginia, which is a question of fact. In denying the motions below, the court said that if it were "writing on a new slate before Martin," it might have some misgivings as to this finding. The court was referring to Texas Co. v. Gianfala, 5 Cir., 222 F.2d 382; Id., 350 U.S. 879, 76 S.Ct. 141, 100 L.Ed. 775, rehearing denied Jan. 30, 1956, 350 U.S. 960, 76 S.Ct. 346, 100 L.Ed. 834. The appellant's contention is that, at the time of his death, the decedent was not in the service of the vessel Mary Virginia, and that there is no substantial evidence to support the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harney v. William M. Moore Building Corporation
...1961), the court said, "a man having a part to play in the mission of a special function vessel may be a seaman." But in Texas Co. v. Savoie, 240 F.2d 674 (5 Cir. 1957), cert. den. 355 U.S. 840, 78 S. Ct. 49, 2 L.Ed.2d 51, the court set aside a jury verdict in favor of a roustabout working ......
-
Hill v. Diamond
...Rock Ferry Co., 342 U.S. 187, 72 S.Ct. 216, 96 L.Ed. 205; Thibodeaux v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., 5 Cir., 276 F.2d 42; Texas Company v. Savoie, 5 Cir., 240 F.2d 674; Antus v. Interocean S.S. Co., 6 Cir., 108 F.2d 185; Hawn v. American S.S. Co., 2 Cir., 107 F.2d 999; Frankel v. Bethlehem-Fairf......
-
Berry v. American Commercial Barge Lines
...(5th Cir.1961), 297 F.2d 374; Senko v. La Crosse Dredging Corp. (1957), 352 U.S. 370, 77 S.Ct. 415, 1 L.Ed.2d 404; and Texas Co. v. Savoie (5th Cir.1957), 240 F.2d 674. It is noteworthy that none of the quoted statements were given in the process of instructing the jury but were statements ......
-
Necaise v. Chrysler Corporation
...Pac. Ry. Co., 5 Cir. 1952, 195 F.2d 629; Swift & Co. v. Morgan & Sturdivant, 5 Cir. 1954, 214 F.2d 115, 49 A.L.R. 2d 924; Texas Co. v. Savoie, 5 Cir. 1957, 240 F.2d 674. Such rules are not in conflict with the law of Florida. Southern Express Co. v. Williamson, 1913, 66 Fla. 286, 63 So. 433......