Wiggins v. Exxon Corp.
This text of 590 So. 2d 1209 (Wiggins v. Exxon Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Louis E. WIGGINS, Individually, and as Administrator of the Estate of Hunter L. Wiggins, Eric M. Wiggins and Maggie A. Wiggins and Stacey S. Wiggins
v.
EXXON CORP.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
Jacques F. Bezou, New Orleans, and Fred A. Blanche, III, Baton Rouge, for plaintiff-appellant Louis E. Wiggins, Ind., etc.
Daniel R. Atkinson, Jr., Baton Rouge, for intervenor-appellant American Gen. Fire & Cas. Co.
E. Burt Harris, New Orleans, for defendant-appellee Exxon Corp.
Before SHORTESS, LANIER and CRAIN, JJ.
SHORTESS, Judge.
Louis E. Wiggins (Wiggins) brought this suit against Exxon Corporation (Exxon), alleging he suffered personal injuries when he struck his head on a pipe while working on Exxon's premises on March 13, 1986. His wife Stacey and his three minor children joined in the suit seeking damages for loss of consortium. (Hereinafter Wiggins, his wife, and children are collectively referred to as plaintiffs.)
Wiggins was employed by American Inspection & Testing Laboratories, Inc. (AITL) at the time of the accident. AITL's worker's compensation insurer, American General Fire & Casualty Company (American), intervened in the suit to recover worker's *1210 compensation payments and medical expenses paid to and on behalf of Wiggins.
After trial on the merits, the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiffs. Wiggins was awarded total damages of $424,000.00, apportioned as follows: physical injury, $50,000.00; physical and mental pain and suffering, $50,000.00; loss of earnings, $250,000.00; and medical expenses, $74,000.00. The jury made no award for permanent disability. Stacey was awarded $20,000.00 for loss of consortium; the children were awarded $10,000.00 each.
The jury found Wiggins' injury was caused by the combined fault of Wiggins and Exxon. Fault was apportioned 70% to Wiggins and 30% to Exxon. American was awarded 30% of the amount for which it intervened.
From this judgment plaintiffs and American (appellants) appeal. Appellants make the following assignments of error: (1) the jury erred in assigning 70% fault to Wiggins; (2) the trial court erred in refusing to include a jury interrogatory regarding whether the fault attributed to Wiggins was a legal cause of his injury; (3) the jury's award of $50,000.00 for physical injury and $50,000.00 for pain and suffering was inadequate; and (4) the jury erred in failing to award damages for permanent disability.
JURY INTERROGATORY
Appellants contend the trial court erred in failing to submit an interrogatory to the jury requiring a finding of whether the fault, if any, of Wiggins was a legal cause of his injury.
An objection to the court's failure to give a particular charge or interrogatory must be made before the jury retires to deliberate. La.C.C.P. arts. 1793 and 1812. Failure to object timely constitutes a waiver of that objection; appellants may not raise the issue for the first time on appeal. Bell v. Vickers, 568 So.2d 160, 166 (La.App. 2d Cir.1990); Hanks v. Barge Transport Co., 563 So.2d 1297, 1300 (La.App. 3d Cir.), writ denied, 569 So.2d 964 (1990). Our review of the record shows appellants made no objection to the interrogatories at trial. Thus, they may not now raise this issue on appeal.
COMPARATIVE FAULT
Appellants contend the jury was clearly wrong in assessing 70% fault to Wiggins.
Wiggins was working for AITL x-raying pipe at the oxo unit at Exxon at the time of the accident. The area in which he was working had been barricaded with tape to prevent accidental exposure to radiation by persons on the Exxon premises. At the end of the work day on March 13, Wiggins took down the barricade tape and began walking toward his employer's truck. He testified he was in a hurry. He was walking fast and watching his feet. According to Wiggins, while walking under a pipe band he walked into a low-hanging pipe with such force that he saw stars and broke some of his teeth. Although Wiggins testified he reported the accident to an Exxon employee when he could not find the chief of security, Exxon had no record of the accident.
Wiggins testified the pipe on which he struck his head was dark brown or black and was "camouflaged" by poor lighting. He never saw it before the accident. Wiggins is 6 feet, 1½ inches tall and was wearing a hard hat which added approximately 4 inches to his height. He testified the pipe was about 6 feet above the ground.
To prevent accidents such as the one alleged by plaintiff, Exxon provided designated walkways which were designated by yellow lines on the concrete floor. There were also accessways which had 10 feet clearance because heavy equipment was driven through them. Raymond H. Comingore, Exxon Chemical's operations manager for the oxo plasticizer operations, testified the accessways were the preferred method of getting around the oxo unit.
Comingore testified there were some cases of obstructions in designated walkways. However, those obstructions were painted fluorescent orange or highlighted with red barricade tape. All pipes at head *1211 level, whether in a designated walkway or otherwise, were required to be so marked.
Comingore testified areas under pipe bands are never designated walkways. Donald Jenkins, operations supervisor at the Exxon Chemical oxo unit, also testified areas under pipe bands are not designated walkways. They are suitable for walking under only if checking for leaks. David Lockhart, Wiggins' supervisor, testified there are open areas through which a person could walk which are not designated walkways, but because of the nature of the unit, there are hazards "anywhere in there that is not designated to walk."
Approximately a year after the accident, Lockhart inspected the area where Wiggins was working at the time of the alleged accident. The only low-hanging pipe he found was not in a designated walkway.
Wiggins testified that in 60% to 75% of the plants in which he had worked the areas under pipe bands were designated walkways. However, he also testified those walkways were usually marked with yellow lines. Wiggins' testimony was extremely equivocal as to whether he was in an accessway or designated walkway at the time of the accident. He stated he did not "exactly recall" whether there were yellow lines on the ground at the site of his accident.
Comingore, Jenkins, and Lockhart all testified regarding the lighting in the area where the accident occurred. They described the lighting at night as "adequate for walking," "good," and "sufficient," respectively.
A court of appeal may not set aside a jury's findings in the absence of manifest error. Where there is a conflict in the testimony, reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed upon review. If the jury's findings are reasonable in light of the record reviewed in its entirety, we may not reverse even though we may have weighed the evidence differently if sitting as the trier of fact. Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840, 844 (La.1989).
Wiggins had worked at numerous plants, including Exxon, during his twenty-year career. He was familiar with the dangers posed by low-hanging pipes. Wiggins testified that at the time of the accident he was walking fast and not keeping a proper lookout. Furthermore, there was an abundance of evidence from which the jury could have concluded Wiggins was not walking in a designated walkway at the time of the accident.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
590 So. 2d 1209, 1991 WL 255299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wiggins-v-exxon-corp-lactapp-1991.