Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; December 9, 1984; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
An appellate court reviewed a district court judgment awarding Egbert L. Wright $216,000 plus legal interest and expert fees from Ocean Drilling and Exploration Company (Odeco) following a jury verdict. Odeco appealed, challenging several findings:
1. The jury's determination that the D/B Ocean King was a vessel in navigation, Wright was a seaman, Odeco's negligence was a legal cause of Wright's first accident, and that Wright was only 10% negligent.
2. The finding that the D/B Ocean Rover was unseaworthy and that Odeco's negligence caused Wright's second accident.
3. The claim that the damages awarded were excessively high.
4. The trial court's decision to strike three of Odeco's witnesses and the subsequent denial of a mistrial.
Wright, employed as a motorman by Odeco in February 1982, was tasked with removing a malfunctioning 8-ton generator from the engine room of the King, which was in a shipyard undergoing repairs. The jury concluded that the rig was afloat, fully crewed, and nearly operational. The generator's removal required a labor-intensive process involving multiple seamen and took approximately 7-8 hours, during which Wright sustained a back injury. He did not report the injury immediately, attributing his pain to fatigue from hard work, but his condition worsened over time.
Plaintiff reported an accident from April 11, 1982, to the safetyman on May 9, 1982, after returning to work on the King. On May 12, at his request, he was transferred to the Rover in Port Arthur, Texas. He waited for a few days for the crew to arrive from Europe, engaging in no heavy labor initially. On the third day, he was tasked with removing a 2,000-pound air blower from a generator, which required him to work alone and use chainfalls to hoist the air blower. He completed the task but experienced back pain that night and was later diagnosed with intervertebral disc disease at St. Mary's Hospital.
During the trial, a sequestration order was in place. Byron Bonck, a law student from Odeco, attended the trial without being assigned. He transported witnesses to court and discussed potential contradictions in their testimonies, which led to court questioning about the conversations. Witness Lois Bailey denied any discussion, while Norman Rester was evasive, acknowledging only a vague discussion about the case. The trial judge noted the uncertainty and lack of specifics in their recollections regarding the conversation about Mr. Wright's testimony.
The trial court judge found that several witnesses lacked candor, leading to an order for a court policeman to accompany Mr. Bonck to retrieve his notes from the Odeco building. Upon reviewing the notes, the judge determined they were specific to certain witnesses and did not outline general trial strategies. Consequently, as a sanction for violating the sequestration order, the court barred Odeco's witnesses from testifying. Odeco's motion for a mistrial was denied, as the choice of remedy for sequestration violations lies within the trial court's discretion, which an appellate court should not override unless it would have significantly altered the trial's outcome.
The judge noted that while mistrials in civil trials are rare, the proceedings in question occurred outside the jury’s presence, apart from a brief inquiry about Mr. Bonck's identity. Odeco presented witness testimony primarily focused on credibility, but the judge likely concluded this testimony would not have materially affected the trial’s result. Additionally, Odeco contended that the jury incorrectly classified the plaintiff as a Jones Act seaman and that the vessel was "in navigation" during the accident. However, this determination hinged on conflicting testimonies regarding the vessel’s operational status, which the jury assessed as a credibility issue, thus not warranting appellate intervention.
The jury found Odeco negligent for failing to ensure a safe work environment, specifically by not providing sufficient access for equipment like an overhead crane. Odeco argued that the plaintiff bore more than 10% of the negligence, citing rusty, poorly functioning chains as a contributing factor. However, the jury's determination of percentage fault falls under the manifest error rule, and the appellate review found no clear error in the jury's negligence assessment.
Odeco contested the finding of negligence and unseaworthiness related to a second accident. The standard for unseaworthiness, established in *Mitchell v. Trawler Racer, Inc.*, requires a vessel to be reasonably fit for intended use, not accident-free. The accident was attributed to an unreasonable policy rather than a defect in the vessel itself. Distinct from negligence, unseaworthiness liability is rooted in the absolute duty of the owner to provide a seaworthy ship, as reinforced by several court decisions. The jury found Odeco negligent for requiring one worker to lift a heavy airblower in a short time but deemed the plaintiff free of negligence in this instance. Although the jury erred regarding unseaworthiness, its negligence finding was upheld, leading to the affirmation of the judgment on that point.
Odeco also argued that the damage award was excessive. The standard for reviewing damages in Jones Act cases is stricter than in other personal injury cases, permitting overturning awards only if they shock the conscience or indicate bias. The plaintiff suffered significant health issues, including thoracic degenerative joint disease, and was unable to return to work. Economic losses were calculated at $212,062, while the jury awarded $240,000, including $27,938 for pain and suffering. The court found no grounds for concluding that the award was biased or excessive, leading to the affirmation of the district court's judgment.
