Vickers v. Chiles Drilling Co., INGERSOLL-RAND

• Decision Date: 31 August 1989
• Docket Number: No. 88-4741,INGERSOLL-RAND,88-4741
• Citation: 882 F.2d 158
• Parties: Charles VICKERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHILES DRILLING COMPANY, Defendant Cross-Claimant Appellee, v.COMPANY, Defendant Cross-Claimant Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Page 158

882 F.2d 158

Charles VICKERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHILES DRILLING COMPANY, Defendant Cross-Claimant Appellee, v. INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY, Defendant Cross-Claimant Appellant.

No. 88-4741.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 31, 1989.

Grove Stafford, Jr., Andrew P. Texada, Stafford, Stewart & Potter, Alexandria, La., for plaintiff-appellant.

Phillip G. Hunter, Fuhrer, Flournoy, Hunter & Morton, Alexandria, La., for Vickers.

Patrick J. Hanna, James E. Diaz, Sr., Onebane, Donohoe, Bernart, Torian, Diaz, McNamara & Abell, Lafayette, La., for defendant cross-claimant appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.

Before GEE, GARZA and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is the second on this case, and presents for review questions from both Charles Vickers and Ingersoll-Rand Company ("Ingersoll-Rand"). Because we find the allegations of error to be without merit, with the exception of the issue of post-judgment interest, the decision of the trial court on remand is affirmed in part and reversed and rendered in part.

Vickers, a roustabout employed by Chiles Drilling Company ("Chiles"), sued for injuries he received when he jumped off a compressor manufactured by Ingersoll-Rand. The trial court apportioned 55% liability to Chiles and 45% to Vickers, and awarded Vickers $79,841.42 in general and past damages and $197,264.10 in future damages. Chiles appealed that judgment, and this Court reversed the decision of the trial court and remanded the cause for further determination on the issue of Ingersoll-Rand's share of liability and Vickers' damages for mental pain and suffering. Vickers v. Chiles Drilling Co., 822 F.2d 535 (5th Cir.1987).

Ingersoll-Rand now appeals the district court's decision on remand, arguing that the district court apportioned fault improperly and miscalculated the amount of post-judgment interest. Vickers, on the other hand, alleges that the district court erred by not increasing the pain and suffering award, and by holding him 33.3% at fault. These arguments will next be addressed.

Failure to Warn

This Court, in its first opinion in this case, held that Ingersoll-Rand's failure to put a warning on the compressor constituted a defect in design and made the compressor unreasonably dangerous, and remanded the case with instructions to determine Ingersoll-Rand's liability, if any. Ingersoll-Rand now complains that the district court was clearly erroneous in apportioning liability to it. Where a product is defective because it lacks adequate warnings, a presumption arises that, if there had been an adequate warning, the user would have read, understood, and heeded the instructions. Pavlides v. Galveston Yacht Basin, 727 F.2d 330, 340 (5th Cir.1984). Although Ingersoll-Rand presented evidence regarding alternate methods of use of the compressor, it did not present evidence that the user would not have read, understood, or heeded the instructions, and therefore Ingersoll-Rand did not rebut the presumption. Further, the district court's apportionment of 33.3% liability to Ingersoll-Rand is not clearly erroneous, and must stand. We therefore affirm the trial court on this issue.

Post-Judgment Interest

The district court awarded $48,388.74 with interest from April 8, 1982 (pre-judgment interest) and $119,554.00 with interest from November 19, 1985 (post-judgment interest). Ingersoll-Rand complains that the post-judgment interest award was improper, since the prior mandate from this court did not direct that post-judgment interest run from the date of the first judgment. This point is well taken. If an appellate court reverses or...