Poirier v. Diamond Offshore (USA), Inc.

Fifth Circuit

Poirier v. Diamond Offshore (USA), Inc.

200 F. App'x 308

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 13, 2006

Docket05-30792

StatusUnpublished

This text of 200 F. App'x 308 (Poirier v. Diamond Offshore (USA), Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Poirier v. Diamond Offshore (USA), Inc., 200 F. App'x 308 (5th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Following a two-day bench trial, the district court entered judgment against Diamond Offshore Management Company on plaintiff-appellee Henry Poirier’s Jones Act negligence and unseaworthiness claims. Diamond Offshore appeals, challenging the district court’s finding of an unseaworthy vessel and the calculation of damages. We affirm.

Diamond Offshore first challenges the district court’s ruling that “the crew supervisor ... created an unseaworthy condition by allowing the crew to carry out a procedure in which the Plaintiff remained hooked to the manrider and safety lines while on deck during continuous high winds.” This ruling, it argues, is contrary to the Supreme Court’s decision in Usner, which held that an “isolated, personal negligent act of [a fellow worker]” cannot provide the basis for a claim of transitory unseaworthiness. Usner v. Luckenbach Overseas Corp., 400 U.S. 494, 500, 91 S.Ct. 514, 27 L.Ed.2d 562 (1971).

We decline to correct the district court’s error, if any, because such an error would not affect the defendant’s substantial rights. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 61. The plaintiffs recovery is independently supported by his winning claim of negligence under the Jones Act, a judgment from which Diamond Offshore does not appeal.

Diamond Offshore also challenges as clearly erroneous the district court’s damage awards for past and future pain and suffering ($250,000), past lost wages ($50,-000), and future economic loss ($180,000). We are convinced, after a review of the record, that these amounts are not greater than the maximum amount the trier of fact could properly have awarded. Sosa v. M/V Lago Izabal, 736 F.2d 1028, 1035 (1984).

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Following a two-day bench trial, the district court entered judgment against Diamond Offshore Management Company on plaintiff-appellee Henry Poirier’s Jones Act negligence and unseaworthiness claims. Diamond Offshore appeals, challenging the district court’s finding of an unseaworthy vessel and the calculation of damages. We affirm.

Diamond Offshore first challenges the district court’s ruling that “the crew supervisor ... created an unseaworthy condition by allowing the crew to carry out a procedure in which the Plaintiff remained hooked to the manrider and safety lines while on deck during continuous high winds.” This ruling, it argues, is contrary to the Supreme Court’s decision in Usner, which held that an “isolated, personal negligent act of [a fellow worker]” cannot provide the basis for a claim of transitory unseaworthiness. Usner v. Luckenbach Overseas Corp., 400 U.S. 494, 500, 91 S.Ct. 514, 27 L.Ed.2d 562 (1971).

We decline to correct the district court’s error, if any, because such an error would not affect the defendant’s substantial rights. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 61. The plaintiffs recovery is independently supported by his winning claim of negligence under the Jones Act, a judgment from which Diamond Offshore does not appeal.

Diamond Offshore also challenges as clearly erroneous the district court’s damage awards for past and future pain and suffering ($250,000), past lost wages ($50,-000), and future economic loss ($180,000). We are convinced, after a review of the record, that these amounts are not greater than the maximum amount the trier of fact could properly have awarded. Sosa v. M/V Lago Izabal, 736 F.2d 1028, 1035 (1984).

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 F. App'x 308, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/poirier-v-diamond-offshore-usa-inc-ca5-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack