You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Muirhead v. Transworld Drilling Co.

Citations: 469 So. 2d 474; 1985 La. App. LEXIS 9443Docket: No. 84-441

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; May 15, 1985; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

This case involves a personal injury lawsuit filed by a crane operator against Transworld Drilling Company and Aminoil Development, Inc., under the Jones Act and general maritime law. The plaintiff sustained injuries after slipping in a parking lot leased by Oil Base, Inc., now Hughes Tool Company. The jury found the plaintiff 18% negligent, Transworld 24% negligent, and Aminoil 58% negligent, awarding $494,000 in damages. Aminoil sought indemnity from Transworld and Oil Base, leading to a court order for Transworld to indemnify Aminoil. Following motions, a new trial on damages was proposed unless a remittitur was accepted, resulting in a $150,000 settlement. On appeal, Transworld contested the indemnity judgment, arguing the accident was outside its contractual obligations. The trial court upheld the indemnity agreement, interpreting it broadly under federal and Louisiana law. Aminoil's defense costs claim was acknowledged, necessitating a remand for cost determination. The judgment was affirmed with directions for further proceedings, emphasizing the broad interpretation of indemnity clauses in maritime contracts under applicable law.

Legal Issues Addressed

Defense Costs in Indemnity Cases

Application: The court acknowledged Aminoil's request for a fixed defense cost and remanded the case to determine those costs.

Reasoning: Aminoil's request for a fixed defense cost of $15,000 was acknowledged, but the case was remanded to the trial court for determination of those costs.

Indemnity Agreements under Maritime Law

Application: The court affirmed that the indemnity agreement between Aminoil and Transworld covered the incident involving Muirhead, as it was related to work activities, including transportation to and from the drilling site.

Reasoning: The trial judge affirmed the enforceability of an indemnity agreement between Aminoil and Transworld, stating that the term 'work' should be interpreted in its everyday meaning.

Jurisdiction and Choice of Law in Maritime Contracts

Application: The court applied federal and Louisiana state law to interpret the indemnity agreement, rejecting Transworld's reliance on Texas law for a narrow interpretation.

Reasoning: Transworld's argument against liability, based on three Texas cases, was dismissed, as Texas law's narrow interpretation does not apply due to the jurisdiction of the drilling contract, which falls under federal law and Louisiana state law.

Negligence and Apportionment of Fault

Application: The jury apportioned fault among the parties, finding Muirhead 18% negligent, Transworld 24% negligent, and Aminoil 58% negligent, which affected the damages awarded.

Reasoning: During the trial, the jury found Muirhead 18% negligent, Transworld 24% negligent, and Aminoil 58% negligent, awarding Muirhead $494,000 in damages.

Remittitur and Settlement in Personal Injury Cases

Application: The court ordered a new trial on damages unless Muirhead accepted a remittitur, which ultimately led to a settlement for $150,000.

Reasoning: Following motions by Aminoil and Transworld, a new trial on damages was ordered unless Muirhead accepted a remittitur. Ultimately, the parties settled for $150,000.