Louisiana Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

On behalf of the Berniard Law Firm, we'd like to wish all of our clients and employees a Happy and Safe Holidays and New Years.

The blog will resume postings in 2012!

Not all employees furthering a vessel's mission are seamen. They can provide short-term or even land-based support. If so, they aren't seamen under the federal Jones Act. Whether Kerry Becnel was a seaman when he was injured was the issue considered in Becnel v. Chet Morrison, Inc., No. 2010-CA-1411 (La. Ct. App. 4 Cir. 8/31/11). The court of appeal reversed the St. Bernard 34th Judicial District Court and sent the case back for trial.

In the U.S. Supreme Court case of Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, the first question to determine whether an employee is a seaman is simple: did the employee "contribute[ ] to the function of the vessel or accomplishment of its mission." Becnel did contribute. He worked 17-hour days in preparing meals, cooking food, and cleaning. He sustained injuries when he fell off a barge at the end of one of those long working days. The parties did not dispute that Becnel met this test.

The second part of the Chandris test is harder: "whether that employee had a connection to a vessel in navigation which was substantial both in terms of duration and nature." Two questions arise. Did the employee have a connection to a vessel in navigation? Was that connection substantial in its duration and nature.

Did Becnel have a connection to a vessel? The barge owner, Chet Morrison Contractors, Inc. (CMC), argued that Becnel did. Becnel's employer, Coastal Catering, L.L.C. and its insurer State National Insurance Co. (SNIC) argued that Becnel did not because Coastal randomly assigned Becnel to its customers. Becnel's assignments, Coastal said, were more often fixed platforms than boats. But this means of employment does not prevent one from being a Jones Act seaman. Seaman status cannot be defeated merely because someone in the future could be assigned a non-seaman role or "could have been assigned to other work locations." What matters is that the person is "continuously subjected to the perils of the sea and engaged in classical seaman's work."

Becnel was "a day-cook/steward and a night cook" with his employer, Coastal, which served a number of customers. Becnel had worked for 153 days at seven different job sites, including five of Coastal's customers. These customers included dive boats, drilling ships, and fixed platforms. But, CMC said Becnel always worked on an identifiable fleet of vessels, and Becnel said all of his assignments were part of a CMC project. The court of appeal found these facts did not result in a clear answer to whether Becnel was connected with a vessel. It could not be resolved on summary judgment.

Did Becnel have a substantial connection in duration and nature with a vessel? The ordinary case in the U.S. Fifth Circuit requires at least 30% of one's time in service of a vessel in navigation to qualify as a Jones Act seaman. Circumstances may justify a lesser percentage of time. The parties disputed how to compute Becnel's percentage of service. Coastal and SNIC argued that Becnel was not a seaman because he worked less than 30% of his time on CMC vessels. But, CMC said that Becnel met the test when considering all his assignments with Coastal.

The court looked at the evidence on either side of the argument. By Coastal's tally, Becnel had worked for 153 days on seven jobs for periods ranging from seven days to 52 days. Within those 153 days, 64 were spent on fixed platforms and 35 were on CMC barges. Coastal and SNIC argued that 35 days was only 23% of Becnel's time in service, and that wasn't enough to qualify as a seaman. One witness also doubted that CMC owned the quarters barge where Becnel worked. Others had testified, instead, that Becnel had always worked on barges or vessels of some type.

The discrepancy could be resolved only by weighing of evidence and determining the credibility of witnesses. Those things are matters for a trial court, not an appellate court that does not see the witnesses. The court of appeal determined that Becnel's seaman status could be decided only by the district court.

The right to a jury trial for personal injuries may be the difference that allows recovery for a seaman's injury. In a specialized economy in which services are provided by third parties, it may be difficult to determine whether one is considered a seaman under the Jones Act. Becnel's circumstances provide a warning. A trained lawyer will be able to ask the right questions to find out the important facts and how they affect your case.

Continue reading "Trial Necessary to Determine Jones Act Applicability (Part 2)" »

Kerry Becnel was injured while working on a barge, but his relationship with the vessel is not clear cut, making it difficult to determine whether he was a seaman under the federal Jones Act. In Becnel v. Chet Morrison, Inc., No. 2010-CA-1411 (La. Ct. App. 4 Cir. 8/31/11), the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal reversed the St. Bernard 34th Judicial District Court and sent the case back for trial.

Becnel was a cook on a quarters barge owned by Chet Morrison Contractors, Inc. (CMC). One night in 2005, he was walking from one barge to another to reach a water taxi used to get to his living quarters. Before he reached the water taxi, he fell several feet into the water. Becnel claimed that "there was no safety device, railing, chain, rope, or other safety feature to prevent falling from the side of the vessel," and the owner knew this. To add to the danger, the only light near where he fell was not working. He said he could not avoid the danger because he could not see it.

Becnel sued his employer, Coastal Catering, L.L.C., which had contracted Becnel's services to CMC. He also sued CMC and the companies' insurers. The battle became one between the companies and their insurers. Coastal's insurer, State National Insurance Co. (SNIC), claimed that Coastal's maritime general liability insurance policy did not cover CMC's potential liability for Becnel's injuries, but the district court decided it did.

CMC sought recovery against Coastal for Coastal to compensate and defend CMC's claim against Becnel. CMC argued before the district court that the legal definition of a seaman was enough to show that Becnel was a seaman under the Jones Act. It sought resolution in summary judgment, a means to resolve issues without trial when no genuine issue of material fact complicates the analysis. Coastal and SNIC disagreed.

The district court agreed with CMC's motion that no factual dispute prevented Becnel from being considered a seaman under the protection of the Jones Act. It also found that CMC was an additional insured under Coastal's insurance policy with SNIC. Coastal and its insurers have since settled their claims with Becnel.

Insurer SNIC and employer Coastal appealed the district court decision. They asked the court of appeal whether any disputed facts would prevent the district court from concluding that Becnel was a Jones Act seaman. If there were disputed facts, the question would need to go to trial.

To answer the question, the court of appeal analyzed the Jones Act and cases that have explained its coverage. The federal Jones Act allows a seaman who suffered personal injury while employed to qualify for additional means of recovery for damages and a jury trial. The trial is to be located in the court assigned to the district where the employer resides or has its principal office.

But, what is a seaman? The U.S. Supreme Court case of Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis sets out a two-part test for whether someone is a seaman covered under the Jones Act. The first question is "whether the employee's duties contributed to the function of the vessel or accomplishment of its mission." The second question is "whether that employee had a connection to a vessel in navigation which was substantial both in terms of duration and nature."

The first question is easy to answer in most cases. "[A] maritime employee who does the ship's work falls within the purview of the Jones Act." This includes "[a]ll who work at sea in the service of a ship." Becnel was working as a cook on the quarters barge. The parties didn't appear to dispute that Becnel contributed through his work. Becnel worked 17-hour days preparing three meals, cooking, and cleaning in a galley. These tasks were undisputed, and they were enough so that the first part of the Chandris test was not in dispute. Summary judgment, so far, was OK.

But, the second test was more difficult to resolve and ultimately required choosing among too many disputed facts for a reviewing court to decide (see Part 2).

The right to a jury trial for personal injuries may be the difference that allows recovery for a seaman's injury. In a specialized economy in which services are provided by third parties, it may be difficult to determine whether one is considered a seaman under the Jones Act. Becnel's circumstances provide a warning. A trained lawyer will be able to ask the right questions to find out the important facts and how they affect your case.

Continue reading "Court Determines if Injured Temp Qualifies Under Jones Act" »

As part of our Constitutional right to due process, an individual is allowed to bring grievances before a court. However, certain judicial policies may be enacted to deny plaintiffs from bringing suits that have already been litigated, are being brought with the intent to harass, or are frivolous. The purpose behind such policies is to make courts as efficient as possible by deterring such actions. A recent case out of the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal shines a light on several of these deterrents.

In Mendonca v. Tidewater, Inc., the plaintiff sought to nullify several final judgments made by the district court. Mendonca's list of suits stretched over four years, with multiple appeals and pleas for annulment. However, none of Mendonca's nullity claims or his appeals were successful. In his final appeal for anulment, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals handed down three restrictions that laid Mendonca's long line of cases to rest.

The first of these restrictions was the court's upholding of the defendent's plea of res judicata and failure to state a claim. When res judicata is enacted, the court declares one of two denials. First, that the claim has been subject to a final judgment and thus no longer qualifies for an appeal, or second, that the litigant cannot bring a claim against the same party in a second claim because all claims should have been brought against that party in the initial suit. The policy considerations supporting res judicata is to preserve court resources and protect defendants from being subject to litigation multiple times, with the possibility of having to pay damages more than once. A defendant's plea that a plaintiff has failed to state a claim goes hand-in-hand with res judicata. If res judicata is applicable, then all duplicitous claims cancelled. In Mendonca's case, this means that there were no new claims. Since there were no such claims, the court held that Mendonca's nu
llity actions were a failure to state a new claim.

A second deterrent to brining frivolous, harassing, or duplicitous suits is the possibility of monetary sanctions. Rules of civil procedure require that an attorney make objective inquiries into the facts of a case and the law that pertains to it. These inquiries are held to a high standard as they are seen as an attorney's duty. This means that one's subjective good faith inquiry is not sufficient. When an attorney files a claim, it is important that case history is analyzed to ensure that res judicata does not apply. A failure to inquire about previous claims is a failure to impose the applicable law and is essentially poor lawyering. This was the case in Mendonca's appeal. Any attorney who objectively analyzed the situation would have known that the claim was precluded through res judicata. Yet, Mendonca proceeded. The court interpreted this as an abuse of the judicial system and an attempt to harass the defendant. This abuse justifies the imposition of sanctions.

Sanctions are typically defined as an order to pay to the other party the amount of reasonable expenses through the employment of an attorney. Yet, "reasonable" is not confined to the actual expense accrued by the attorney. Instead, "reasonable" has been interpreted to mean additional costs that act to deter, punish, and compensate. When sanctions are imposed by a trial judge they are unlikely to be appealed. Appellate judges tend to give deference to the trial judge's intimate knowledge of the case, litigants, and attorneys. For these reasons, Mendonca was sanctioned in the amount of $10,000, all of which were upheld on appeal.

A third way that a court can punish an individual as a deterrent is to issue a sanction revoking in forma pauperis status. In forma pauperis is a legal termed used by a judge to allow a poor individual to file a legal case and/or represent oneself at trial. Allowing one to claim this status is to essentially cut most court associated costs for the needy individual in order to ensure due process. Mendonca qualified and was granted this status. However, courts have held that in forma pauperis status is a privilege, not a right. Therefore, any abuse of this status will result in revocation. The most common reason why in forma pauperis status is revoked is because one brings frivolous suits. Mendonca did this in his case and was punished accordingly.

Res judicata, sanctions, and other rules of civil procedure are complicated, requiring a full analysis of the facts and the law. Such situations should only be approached by a licensed practicing attorney.

Continue reading "Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal Punishes For Duplicitous Suits " »

In 2008, Debra Goulas worked as a bookkeeper for Sunbelt Air Conditioning Supply in Baton Rouge. Jessie Touchet, owner of Sunbelt, and Diane Jones, Goulas's manager, accused her of stealing over $500 from the company during February and April that year. Goulas was tried for felony theft and acquitted. Following the criminal trial, she filed suit against Touchet and Jones in July, 2010 alleging defamation. Specifically, Goulas argued that Touchet and Jones "intentionally and negligently inflicted emotional distress" upon her, and that their accusations were "founded in malice to damage her person and reputation." The complaint sought damages for medical expenses, physical and mental pain and suffering, and loss of wages. The defendants filed an exception of prescription. The basis of the exception was that Goulas's claims were based on the defendants' actions that allegedly occurred during February and April of 2008. By the time Goulas filed suit in 2010, more than one year had passed, thereby prescribing the claims. In October, 2010, the trial judge granted the defendants' exception of prescription and dismissed Goulas's claims with prejudice.

Goulas appealed, alleging error on the trial court's ruling that her defamation claim was prescribed. Goulas reasoned that she could not initiate her defamation action until her criminal trial was concluded in March, 2010; accordingly, she argued that prescription did not begin to run until Frederick Jones publicly accused her of theft when testifying at her trial. The First Circuit noted that Louisiana recognizes a qualified privilege that protects parties from charges of defamation related to statements they make during a trial. "It necessarily follows that, during this time, the one-year period that applies to the filing of a defamation action is suspended." However, the court explained, the suspension of prescription applies "only to allegedly defamatory statements made by parties to a lawsuit." In this situation, Frederick and Jones were not parties to Goulas's criminal prosecution, so the prescription suspension did not apply. The court concluded that "since there has been no suspension of the 2008 alleged defamatory statements," the trial court properly granted the defendants' exception of prescription.

This result was no doubt a painful lesson to the Goulas that prescriptive periods and other rules of Louisiana civil procedure can be complex and confusing. At worst, such as here, missing a deadline can prove fatal to a plaintiff's case. Accordingly, it is critical that victims who think they may have a claim should consult a knowledgeable attorney immediately. Time may very well be of the essence in order to secure a day in court.

Continue reading "Baton Rouge Plaintiff Loses Defamation Claim Due to Prescription " »

Our previous post discussed the various principles of contract law at work in the Mendoza case, which can be viewed here. This case involved a dispute between an injured worker's employer and another company with which that employer had a contract. A provision of this contract provided for indemnification, the assuming by one entity of the liability of another.

Companies often assume the liabilities of other entities with which they hold contracts. This is seen as a cost of doing business. Indemnification makes up part of or the entirety of the consideration for some corporate contracts. Contracting away your liability can be extremely valuable. The dispute in this case was when the contract actually became effective. The court used various principles discussed in its opinion and the previous post on this topic to determine that the trial court was correct in denying summary judgment to one party and granting it to the other. Mid South, Mr. Mendoza's employer, was to be indemnified and held blameless by EXCO as per their 2008 agreement.

In general, this dispute really came down to an issue of timing. The two companies in question signed an agreement in December 2008. The incident that created Mr. Mendoza's cause of action occurred in October 2007. He filed suit in August of 2008. Mid South did not file an answer to the complaint until July of 2009. After this filing Mid South demanded defense from EXCO; this defense was promptly denied. Mid South again attempted to illicit indemnification and defense from EXCO in September 2009 based on a 2004 contract that Mid South held with Anadarko, a company whose interests were subsequently absorbed by EXCO. EXCO did not respond until after Mid South filed a cross-claim against EXCO. EXCO filed an exception and answer in April 2010 along with a motion for summary judgment. In July 2010, Mid South filed its cross-motion for summary judgment. The former motion for summary judgment was denied and the latter granted in August of 2010. When the trial court denied EXCO's motion to designate the judgment as appealable, EXCO sought aid from a higher court. The Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit of Louisiana granted EXCO's writ application but ultimately sided with the trial court.

The crux of the appellate court's decision was its interpretation of the "Effective Date" provision of the contract which indicated that the agreement was in full force and effect "on the date first above written or on the date on which CONTRACTOR (Mid South) first commenced the performance of any services for COMPANY (EXCO) or first provided goods, equipment or facilities to COMPANY, whichever first occurred, and even though this Agreement may not then have been reduced to writing." There was conflict among the parties whether this clause or the type-written date "December 16, 2008" should take precedence. The court determined after its de novo review of the trial court record that EXCO should have known that it was assuming liability for events earlier than December 16, 2008 because it drafted the 2008 Agreement. EXCO also alleged error because the type-written date was not given precedence over the pre-printed contract language. The court found this allegation to be without merit. The "Effective Date" provision of the contract was drafted with the potential of the occurrence of a situation like this one in mind. It specifically contemplates an incident like Mr. Mendoza's in its language. It was the opinion of the appellate court he phrase "December 16, 2008" being type-written was not as important as influential as the type-written provisions in the precedential cases making up the common law in this area.

A court's interpretation of a contract can make a crucial difference to the parties involved. EXCO tried to get out of a contract that it had drafted itself. This is a difficult position from which to argue. Almost all of the interpretation tools that a court may use will caution against giving undue deference to the drafter of the contract. Companies must strive to write contracts containing language by which they intend to be bound. Courts must strive to fairly and equitably interpret contracts but they do not have to interpret them according to unexpressed intentions for which the contracts contain no basis.

Continue reading "Second Circuit Case Demonstrates Importance of Proper Contracts" »

A well-written contract can not only solve most problems, it can prevent most problems from becoming problems in the first place. For a contract to have its maximum problem eliminating effect, however, all parties to the contract must agree as to what it mean. Contract law is filled with cases that could have been avoided if the entities involved had simply expressed their terms more clearly or asked the right questions before, during and after the drafting of the contract. While this ambiguity may be intentional by one side or both in the event they think a benefit can be attained, the truth is the best contract is often the one where both parties are simply looking to achieve the main goal fairly. Those instances where ambiguity dominates, however, cause problems. The case of Mendoza v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co., discussed in an earlier post, is one such case.

The Mendoza case was two-fold. It involved questions as to whether and when one company assumed liability for another company. Several contract law principles were implicated in this dispute from which this opinion resulted. Contracts get drafted under the assumption that the parties have reached an agreement. This alleged agreement is nowhere to be found when there is a dispute over the meaning of a contract. When adverse parties give contradictory interpretations of the same contract language a suit often ensues. It is because of the relative frequency of this occurrence that the courts have come up with various rules for interpreting contracts when the parties themselves cannot.

The Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit of Louisiana applied Texas contract law in this case. This was due to an agreement between the parties which was most likely part of the contract itself; there was no dispute over this portion of the contract. For guidance, Texas law contains several well-established principles for evaluating disputed contracts:

First and foremost when interpreting the true meaning of a contract comes the intent of the parties. The parties to the contract presumably know best about what the contract was intended to accomplish and how. This cannot be the only factor in the analysis because when there is a dispute about the meaning of the contract, the parties likely had different intentions in entering into said contract.

The language of the contract is also important. Words can have a myriad of meanings in various different contexts. Courts seek to give the words in a contract one meaning that best suits the occasion. Texas courts seek to "harmonize and effectuate" all of the provisions of a contract. This aim towards harmony is shared in many jurisdictions. Disjointed and unwieldy interpretations of contracts serve none well and only exacerbate disagreements between contracting parties. Courts must seek to interpret the contract as a cohesive document in order to best achieve the ends of the parties. The signatories signed the entire contract so it follows that no portion of the contract was meant to be meaningless.

Theoretically, and in common practice, a court should not edit a contract under Texas law but must seek to enforce the contract as it is written. If a court was free to delete or add provisions to a contract it would be exponentially easier for that court to come to a conclusion as to what the contract was supposed to mean. Despite this added ease, the parties to that contract would be robbed of the contract that they intended. They agreed to the words on the pages of the contract, regardless of their current dispute, at one time. A court must come to a conclusion based on the language that was actually included within a contract, not the language that a court thinks, feels or believes should be included.

It might seem like it would not have to be expressed that a court should seek to avoid a construction for a contract that is "unreasonable, oppressive, inequitable or absurd" but the Texas Court of Appeals made it official. The law of contracts is, at its core, a law of fairness and equity. All language in a contract is supposed to be given its normal grammatical meaning unless otherwise stated in the contract. This too may seem like a meaningless pleasantry that should not bear expressing but in a world where jargon and technical terms are becoming increasingly common, words do not always mean the same thing. One particularly amusing contract dispute once arose out of the meaning of the word "chicken" for purposes of a contract for the sale of certain poultry products.

Our next entry will conclude coverage on this Mendoza principle as well as fleshing out the need for close review of contract provisions and stipulations.

Continue reading "Texas Contract Law Informs Second Circuit Decision" »

Transferring from the deck of your boat to an offshore platform in the Gulf of Mexico to begin your day’s work should not be a terrifying experience. While the transfer involves getting into the personnel basket that transfers you onto the platform and little else, the process itself is not as simple as one plain act. Tragically, this simple transfer does not always occur as planned.

In Michael Channette v. Neches Gulf Marine, Inc. and Seneca Resources Corporation, injured seaman Michael Channette was being transferred from the M/V GOLIAD, operated by Neches Gulf Marine, to an offshore platform operated and owned by Seneca Resources. When the transfer went wrong and Channette was injured, Neches Gulf Marine sought indemnity from Seneca Resources. Indemnification is

"The act of making another "whole" by paying any loss another might suffer. This usually arises from a clause in a contract where a party agrees to pay for any losses which arise or have arisen."

In this case, this is exactly what Neches Gulf Marine asserted – that Seneca Resources was contractually obligated to indemnify them. Unfortunately for Neches Gulf Marine, the district court granted a summary judgment motion for Seneca Resources, thus ruling they had no duty to indemnify Neches Gulf Marine. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit noted that a maritime contract "should be read as whole, and a court should not look beyond the written language of the contract to determine the intent of the parties unless the disputed language is ambiguous."

Although Neches Gulf Marine attempted to use parole evidence (essentially evidence laying outside the four corners of the contract) during the appeal to show that Seneca Resources had a duty to indemnify, the Fifth Circuit held that since the contracts introduced were unambiguous on their face, Neches Gulf Marine would not be allowed to introduce parole evidence. The court held that the first contract put forth by Neches Gulf Marine was clear and unambiguous in its expiration before Channette’s injury, and held that the second contract asserted by Neches Gulf Marine clearly and unambiguously failed to identify Neches Gulf Marine as a party that could lead to a duty to indemnify by Seneca Resources.

While the transfer from personnel basket to platform is a complicated one, it is not the only maritime process that can go awry. Accidents at sea happen all too often and workers in this dangerous field of offshore activity should know their rights in the event of an incident or injury on the job.

Continue reading "Injury At Sea & Indemnification: Who Pays? " »

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently affirmed in principal part, the trial court's ruling granting a longshoreman damages for a workers' compensation claim. Benjamin McCuller and his wife, Miranda McCuller, sued Nautical Ventures, L.L.C., under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA), 33 U.S.C. § 905(b), after Benjamin, who was working as a longshoreman, was injured when he fell while descending a ladder on a ship owned by Nautical. Mr. McCuller was working for Halliburton Energy Services at a marine terminal in Fourchon, Louisiana when he was injured after one of the ladder rungs broke during his descent.

The bulk of the appeals court opinion discussed whether Halliburton, Nautical, or Mr. McCuller was at fault for the injuries suffered by Mr. McCuller. First, the appeals court agreed with the trial court that Nautical had breached its "turnover duty" when it deployed a defective ladder, which had been damaged during a sea deployment several weeks before Mr. McCuller's fall. "The 'turnover duty' relates to the condition of the ship upon the commencement of stevedoring operations" and "requires a vessel to exercise ordinary care under the circumstances to turn over the ship and its equipment in such condition that an expert and experienced stevedoring contractor, mindful of the dangers he should reasonably expect to encounter will be able by the exercise of ordinary care to carry on cargo operations with reasonable safety to persons and property." This specific duty is the statutory basis for the McCullers' claim as codified in the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. In other words, this tort statute places upon the ship owner the duty to discover and fix potentially dangerous ship defects after a ship returns from sea. In the case at hand, the court found that an expert inspecting the ship should have discovered the crack in the ladder. Therefore, the appeals court affirmed the trial court's ruling that Nautical was at fault for Mr. McCuller's injuries because it was negligent in breaching its turnover duty by providing a faulty ladder for his use. However, it should be pointed out that the damages were reduced because Mr. McCuller was found to be 30% at fault for carrying a clipboard down the ladder when he was injured. But, the appeals court made clear that Mr. McCuller in no way had a duty to discover and fix the defective ladder.

However, the appeals court also made clear that there are certain circumstances when Mr. McCuller and/or Halliburton (his employer) would have a duty to discover potentially dangerous ship defects. In other words, there is one significant exception to the “turnover duty.” That is, if the defect causing the injury is or should be "open and obvious" to a reasonable longshoreman or stevedore-employer, than the ship owner cannot be held liable for the resulting damages. However, in the instant case the trial court found, and the appeals court agreed, that the crack in the ladder was not, and should not have been "open and obvious" to a reasonable stevedore and/or longshoreman.

The fact is, determining what constitutes an "open and obvious" defect can be a difficult factual question, which takes lots of time and resources to discover. In the instant case, it took scores of witness and expert testimony to convince the court that the defect was not “open and obvious.” Moreover, in addition to the “open and obvious” exception, there are countless other exceptions to tort laws that could potentially prevent an injured individual from recovering the damages he/she deserves. Therefore, if you have been injured at work it is important you contact an attorney or law firm that has the legal expertise and resources to determine if your injuries were the result of negligence; and if so, to get you the legal compensation you deserve.

Continue reading "Court of Appeals Upholds Trial Court Ruling Granting Longshoreman's Workers Compensation Claim" »

At times accidents on bodies of water are governed by a unique set of federal laws called admiralty laws. The court will thus apply admiralty law as opposed to federal or state law. This law of the water plays an important part in the administration of justice in Louisiana because of the great amount of water-based industries operating out of the state, and the high potential for lawsuits to occur within these industries.

Whether or not admiralty law can or need be applied can be very important to cases because the different set of laws can actually change a party’s rights. For example, under admiralty law if you make a Rule 9(h) declaration designating your maritime claims as claims governed by admiralty jurisdiction, then there is no right to a jury trial, even where you could get a jury trial under state or federal law.

The application of admiralty law was recently at issue in the case Apache v. GlobalSantaFe Drilling Company. In this case, a mobile offshore drilling unit, owned by GlobalSantaFe, collided with an offshore oil and gas production platform, owned in part by Apache Corporation. Apache sued GlobalSantaFe to recover the damages caused to the platform. Apache asserted that the suit could be under both admiralty law and federal law.

Even though both parties requested a jury trial for the suit, GlobalSantaFe later decided it did not want a jury trial. Thus, GlobalSantaFe attempted to strike the requests for a jury trial by arguing that Apache had made a Rule 9(h) declaration, designating the claim for admiralty jurisdiction and losing the right to a jury trial.

Despite the fact that Apache had asserted the claim under both admiralty and federal law, the parties later stipulated to the fact that: “Apache did not make a 9(h) declaration.” In situations where it is not clear whether a party made a 9(h) declaration, courts look to the totality of the circumstances, considering, for example, whether the claim is viable under any other sector of law.

Here, not only is the claim viable under federal law, but the parties also stipulated to the fact that Apache did not make a 9(h) declaration. When a party stipulates to a fact it has made a formal concession. Thus, GlobalSantaFe is bound by its stipulation, and cannot strike the requests for a jury trial on the basis of Apache making a 9(h) declaration.

"Plaintiff Lost at Seaman Claim"

Robert Teaver may have fancied himself a man of the sea but the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed with the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana that there was no way he could establish his status as a "seaman" for purposes of the Jones Act.

When dealing with litigation, especially when making a claim under a premise, words mean everything. To clarify, words mean specific things and those specific definitions are everything. Robert Teaver attempted to sue his employer under the Jones Act. The Jones Act was crafted to protect seamen who are injured in the course of their employment. This statute lays out the elements that must be met in order for a potential plaintiff to file a successful suit under it. Robert Teaver was a crane operator and installer for Seatrax of Louisiana, Inc. This company makes and installs cranes for offshore drilling platforms. Mr. Teaver's work took him over water but he was not employed on a maritime vessel.

Mr. Teaver's first assignment put him on the M/V Chermie, a boat owned by L&M BoTruc Rental, Inc. Mr. Teaver and his brethren were to eat and sleep aboard this vessel during the three days that they were out on this assignment. The team was to disassemble a portable crane on an oil platform 90 miles of the coast of Louisiana. The platform was owned by Mariner, Inc.

Mr. Teaver received injuries that left him permanently paralyzed less than 24 hours into his employment with Seatrax. He fell about 19 feet on to a gangbox, a type of toolbox. Mr. Teaver filed a claim in Louisiana state court under the Jones Act. This would prove to be a mistake. Mariner removed the suit to federal court under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. Federal question jurisdiction was invoked. Mr. Teaver tried to remand the action to state court with no success.

Mr. Teaver was not a seaman as defined in Chandris, Inc. v. Latis, 515 U.S. 347, 369 (1995). The court in Chandris held that to qualify as a seaman under the Jones Act a plaintiff must establish that "(1) his duties 'contribute to the function of the vessel or to the accomplishment of its mission,' and (2) he has 'a connection to a vessel in navigation (or an identifiable group of such vessels) that is substantial in terms of both its duration and its nature.'"

The seaman must be a member of a vessel's crew and not just a land-based employee who happens to be on the vessel. The coincidental nature of Mr. Teaver's presence on the M/V Chermie is not enough to qualify him as a seaman. Louisiana case law prevents a person whose relationship with a given vessel or set of vessels is simply "transitory and fortuitous" from filing suit under the Jones Act. Mr. Teaver did not contribute to the function of the Chermie. He did not take direction from its captain. The Cheramie was simply a supply vessel. The Seatrax workers were not "borrowed servants" under any agreement between Seatrax and Mariner or L&M. No such agreement existed.

Mr. Teaver tried several reaching arguments in an attempt to distinguish his case from the cases that set the precedents in this area of law. The trial court did not agree with his arguments nor did the appeals court after reviewing his arguments de novo. Mr. Teaver may have done himself a disservice by attempting to file suit under the incorrect statute. Had he been successful, having his case defined as a Jones Act case would prevent it from being removed to federal court. There must have been some reason that Mr. Teaver wanted to keep the litigation in state court. Hopefully he has not wasted his chance for justice and compensation by trying the wrong legal maneuver for the situation.

To read more about Mr. Teaver's ill-fated nautical journey read the case here.

Continue reading "Jones Act Lawsuit Fails Under Seaman Claim" »

3rd Circuit Uses Helicopter Injury Case to Clarify "Injury Within the Scope of Employment"

Injuries in the workplace occur frequently and thus many states have forced employers to purchase workers' compensation insurance. Under workers' compensation, the employer's insurance agrees to pay for any lost wages and medical bills as a result of the employee's injury. In exchange for this security the employer may use workers' compensation as an affirmative defense with the burden of proof on the employer to insulate the employer from tort liability. This essentially minimizes an injured's claim. However, as Herbert v. Richard illustrates, it is vital that one consider whether or not the injury occurred while within the scope of employment. Depending on the answer to this question, an employer may be barred from using workers' compensation as an affirmative defense to protect itself from tort liability, resulting in a potentially greater claim by the injured.

In Herbert v. Richard, an employee fell from a helicopter while netting deer in Mexico on behalf of a game management company, Game Management Inc (GMI). Though the deer netting enterprise was GMI's, the employee worked for Industrial Helicopters, Inc., a company owned by the same family that owned GMI. Mr. Herbert, the employee, had been a fuel truck driver for twenty nine years and had only been on GMI's netting excursions once before the injury. Industrial sought to invoke a workers' compensation affirmative defense arguing that Mr. Herbert was either within the scope of his employment, was a borrowed employee from Industrial, or, alternatively, that Industrial and GMI were joint employers.

There are two issues that must be considered when determining if an injury has occurred within the scope of employment. The first gauge is whether or not the employee was engaged in the employer's business at the time of injury. If the injury occurred while acting on behalf of the employer's business, then it is likely that the injury falls within the scope of employment. For example, if an employee at a warehouse is responsible for loading the company truck and making deliveries to regional retail stores, an injury that occurs while loading the truck at the warehouse would fall under scope of employment. However, if the injured occurred while participating in business not related to the employer, then the injury would fall outside the scope of employment.

The second way an injury falls within the scope of employment is if the obligations of the employment caused the employee to be at the site of the accident at the time the accident occurred. Applying this to the example above, we see that if the truck driver was injured while unloading the company truck at a retail store his injury would fall within the scope of his employment because his job requires him to unload trucks at various stores. Even an injury obtained from an accident while in route to the retail store in this example would fall within the scope of employment because the truck driver is en route to the store only as a part of his employment. In these instances the employer would be able to use workers' compensation as an affirmative defense and therefore protect itself from tort liability unless the tort was intentional.

The following questions also may be helpful in determining whether an injury has occurred within the scope of employment: Was I doing the act on behalf of my employer? Had I done that type of task for my employer before? Was I being paid for the work that was being completed at the time of the injury? Is this the type of work my employer regularly asks its employees to take part in? In addition to these questions, it is important to consider whether the injured was a "borrowed employee" or was working under "joint employment."

These issues will be discussed in our next post.

Gambling is one of the many recreational activities that the state of Louisiana has to offer. One of the more popular ways to gamble in Louisiana, is on the river boat casinos. However, in a recent Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal decision, the court explored whether or not incidents such as personal injury that occur on these river boat casinos qualify under maritime law as a result of being "in navigation." This issue presents an interesting dilemma in classification, especially after the Louisiana legislature in 2001 amended the gambling laws so as to prohibit gambling boats in Lake Charles from conducting cruises or excursions. Thus, the question becomes: are these river boat casinos in navigation and thus governed by maritime law?

The facts of the case include a young woman who visited a river boat casino on Lake Charles to enjoy gambling in addition to the complimentary food and drinks. However, she became intoxicated and at 4 a.m., she fell from a stairway onto the ground below, suffering serious injuries. According to protocall, her blood alcohol content was measured at 0.33%. Initially, the young woman pursued damages under Louisiana law, however, Louisiana Revised Statute 9:2800.1 provides:

"The legislature finds and declares that the consumption of intoxicating beverages, rather than the sale or serving or furnishing of such beverages, is the proximate cause of any injury, including death and property damage, inflicted by an intoxicated person upon himself or upon another person."

In an effort to circumvent Louisiana's statute prohibiting liability in the case of an intoxicated individual, the young woman alleged that her cause of action was instead, controlled by federal maritime law which contains no similar provision barring the type of claims she was asserting. Her reasoning for alleging a federal maritime claim, was that her fall occurred on a permanently moored floating casino, a watercraft she contends is a vessel in navigation for purposes of general maritime law. The trial court did not explore the definition of "navigation," nor the actual status of the casino, but instead, agreed, finding the plaintiff's claims did fall within admiralty jurisdiction. It was not until the defendant river boat casino company files an appeal that the actual status of the boat was taken into consideration and explored.

Whether or not a boat is in navigation depends on the services the boat provides and the duties the boat performs. As such, in Stewart v. Dutra, the Supreme Court discussed the distinction drawn by the general maritime law between watercraft that are permanently affixed to the shore or resting on the ocean floor and those that are temporarily stationed in a particular location. The record reflects that the Lake Charles river boat casino was prohibited from conducting cruises or excursions after the Louisiana legislature enacted La. R.S. 2765. Since that time period, the river boat casino has been docked and has not conducted any cruises. Further, the boat itself was fitted with four winches, each holding steel cables to permanently secure the vessel to the dock. The utilities servicing the boat, including electricity, water, telephone, sewer, cable, and surveillance were attached to the vessel from land-based sources. Additionally, since the restrictions were set in place prohibiting river boat casinos mobility, the crew of the river boat has been significantly reduced, in fact the captain of the boat was no longer responsible for any navigational duties. To support the contention that this river boat is indeed "out of navigation," the Fifth Circuit held in De LaRosa v. St. Charles Gaming Co., that the very same gambling boat at issue in the present case, was not a vessel for purposes of admiralty jurisdiction. The Appellate court dismissed the young woman's claim, citing to the federal jurisprudence interpretation on maritime jurisdictional rules and definitions as applied to similar boats and circumstances. Therefore, her claim was not based in general maritime jurisdiction and would have to be governed by Louisiana statutes, which ultimately will deny her damages as a result of her blood alcohol content.

In summary, boats have to be in navigation in order to qualify for general maritime jurisdiction. The numerous river boat casinos that are located throughout Southeast Louisiana may fall outside the definition of a "vessel in navigation." A boat cannot be permanently attached to the shore, or moored for extended periods of time and still qualify as being "in navigation." Thus, the river boat casino would not be governed by federal maritime law, instead, they are out of navigation and are governed by the rules and statutes of Louisiana.

In the event that a landowner plans to do any form of significant work on an area of land, whether cosmetic, such as landscaping, or extensive, the work should be preceded by the contracting of one qualified and certified to inspect the property and physically mark the location of utility cables upon it. This is to prevent damage to the utility cables, and to prevent the costs of repair to the companies which own the cables. Such action invokes the Louisiana Damage Prevention Act - Louisiana Underground Utilities and Facilities Damage Prevention Law.

An incident central to the MCI Communications Services, Inc. v. Hagan case was noted at causing a $20,000 a minute loss to the utility company for every minute the cable was out of commission. It thus seems rational that the possible negligence and/or trespass in damaging the cable, property owned by a utility company, can cause significant troubles, even if it occurs within the property of the landowner.

The most substantial part involved in this case is the determination of what the definition of trespass and negligence is when a landowner affects the transposed property of the utility company. Without a doubt, a landowner has the right to be on and use the land, but the utility company also has been given the right by law to continue to leave its utility cable in/on the land and continue using it, and retains this right even if the contract for use of the land was made with a previous landowner. If a servitude is involved with having the utility cable in/on the land, then there is a possible claim for Trespass to Land in conjunction with a negligence claim. However, if there is not a servitude, and only a right to continue to use the utility cable on the land exists, then the recourse if damage occurs would be Trespass to Chattels, for damage to personal property, not Trespass to Land, as attempted in this case.

The intent question is one of strict liability, whether the only intent needed is the intent to perform the action, in this case intentionally using the backhoe, and a result, damaging the utility cable, occurred. More succinctly, the aforementioned case notes a trespass is "an unlawful physical invasion of property in the possession of another and the only intent required is the trespasser's intent to perform the act which constitutes the trespass." Thus, "an individual need only refrain from taking intentional action that results in harm to another." However, the Louisiana Supreme Court has yet to rule on the intent standard in regard to claims of trespass to underground cables, and hence, the issue at hand. The Certified Question for the Louisiana Supreme Court is:

"Is the proposed jury instruction in this case, which states that "[a] Defendant may be held liable for an inadvertent trespass resulting from an intentional act," a correct statement of Louisiana law when the trespass at issue is the severing of an underground cable located on property owned by one of the alleged trespassers, and the property is not subject to a servitude by the owners of the underground cable but only to the contractual right to keep it, as an existing cable, underneath the property?"

The ruling by the Louisiana Supreme Court will not only impact a landowner, but the contractors and excavators who will more commonly perform the excavations, and are more likely to cause damage to underground utility cables. This could also bring up further issues in agency, for if it was to be found that an individual who caused the resulting damage was acting as an agent of another, the principal, then the principal would incur the legal wrath of the utility companies.

Though the Supreme Court of Louisiana has yet to rule on this Certification Question, as to the standard of intent for trespass in this situation, contact the Berniard Law Firm for further information regarding the outcome of this case, for clarification of the Louisiana Damage Prevention Act, and for assistance in determining if your property is subject to similar issues.

The ABA (American Bar Association) has called upon lawyers and non-lawyers alike to submit blogs from across the internet as exceptional examples of legal advice and content. With content about the law ranging widely across the internet, the ABA recognizes the value of those blogs that wish to educate the public about a wide range of issues as examples of how attorneys can help bring an understanding of public policy to the masses.

Through a form, located here, ABA members and/or the public can nominate the efforts of attorneys whose work helps explain the complexities that the law has to offer. While the competition prevents bloggers from nominating themselves, the ABA has requested that the work of their peers be showcased. Due by September 9th, blog suggestions can cover any topic of the law, whether maritime, personal injury, civil or criminal in nature. This possibility of diversity makes the Top 100 list all the more interesting because of the wide variety of content the selected are sure to cover.

If you know of a blog that wishes to discuss legal issues of interest to lawyers (and perhaps those outside of the field), click here to fill out the ABA's form. Limited to 500 words, nominations should explain why the blog, obviously, deserves to be included in the list as well as its value as a whole. Nominated sites should avoid the regurgitation of content from other sites (copy and pasted quotes of news items, etc.), showing that the main focus of the content is original discussion of those issues of law that affect professionals as well as the public.

We will undoubtedly be checking out this list as it is sure to contain content that is of interest not only to residents of Louisiana but across the country. For a directory of 'blawgs,' as categorized by the American Bar Association, you can click here to tour the spectrum of content available by state or topic.

This blog was started as an effort to not only showcase the knowledge of our law firm but to also provide people, whether residents of New Orleans, Louisiana, the Gulf Coast, or throughout the country, a resource that explains how the law is important to their everyday lives. Blogging is a powerful tool not only in the legal profession but as a medium of empowering people who may not realize that an instance of tragedy or harm comes with it legal recourse. We hope that the content we have provided over time has helped people find an answer to legal issues or simply gain a little bit of knowledge about how this country's system of law works. This is said not to shill for a nomination to the aforementioned contest but, instead, to note that this ABA-sponsored contest highlights something we feel strongly about, that being the power of legal blogs.

We hope you continue to enjoy your weekend and will have new content available Monday.

A wide variety of events can occur to cause injury. The courts, when faced with a civil litigation involving a personal injury, are forced to narrow the cause of said injury in order to determine how much damage was caused by an incident. When a person has a series of injuries, or has a less than sterling claim, the courts are forced to decide just how responsible the incident was for the pain suffered.

A recent case involving a malfunctioning bridge and a questionable "victim" helps highlight this problem. The plaintiff in this case, Ms. Trahan, was stopped at the Highway 14 Bridge in Abbeville, Louisiana as a boat passed under. The bridge, owned and operated by the defendant Louisiana Department of Transportation & Development, failed to correctly fall in place once the boat had safety passed. The bridge incorrectly sat between 3 to 7 inches above the road’s surface. Ms. Trahan hit the raised area while traveling approximately 15 miles per hour. Ms. Trahan claimed that she had sustained severe back pain as a result of the collision. The state argued that they were in fact liable for the defect in the bridge, but the injury sustained by Ms. Trahan was not at all related to the defective bridge. The trial court agreed with the state department and dismissed the case. In its conclusion, the trial court found the credibility of Ms. Trahan to be highly suspect, and was presented with evidence that suggested alternative possibilities for Ms. Trahan’s injuries. Ms. Trahan’s sole appeal rested on the fact that the trial court erred when it failed to find that the injury to Ms. Trahan was a direct result of the bridge incident.

A necessary element to a claim of liability is not simply that an injury exists, but that the factual evidence sufficiently shows that the defendant was the actual and proximate cause of that injury. In ruling on questions of fact, like the one presented in this case, the appellate court follows the manifest error standard when determining whether to affirm or reverse the trial court’s decision. At the trial court, Ms. Trahan was required to show by a preponderance of the evidence that her back injury was a direct result of the bridge’s defect. Because the trial court determined that Ms. Trahan failed to meet that burden, the manifest error standard, as stated in Lewis v. Department of Transportation & Development, requires the appellate court to determine only if the trial court’s factual conclusion were reasonable. The decision is only reversed if it is found that the trial court’s finding was clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous. The case of Orea v. Scallan puts the standard in perspective, stating that the appellate court may not reverse simply because it is convinced that, had it been determining the facts as they were presented in the trial court, it would have come to a different outcome. Additionally, when a trial court’s findings are based on the credibility of witnesses, Rosell v. ESCO establishes that the trial court’s reasonable evaluation of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed upon review by the appellate court.

In following the manifest error standard, the 3rd Circuit affirmed the trial court’s conclusion by finding that the trial court had a reasonable factual basis for its finding. During the trial, it was revealed that Ms. Trahan suffered from spondylolysis, a congenital condition that causes structural weakness in the spine. Doctors close to Ms. Trahan testified that Ms. Trahan found herself in multiple situations prior to the bridge incident that could have caused the injuries. Throughout the trial, Ms. Trahan presented different accounts to different doctors about the nature of her back condition, leaving the trial court to determine Mr. Trahan’s credibility to be “highly suspect.” Ms. Trahan case shows the importance of an individual to not only show that an injury exists when filing a negligence claim, but also that the injury was the actual and proximate cause of the alleged negligent actor.

Injuries to yourself or a loved one should not be taken lightly. If you believe that an injury was the result of some defect, you should consult with a lawyer, as you might be entitled to compensation.

Continue reading "Court Dismisses Case Relating to Spine Injury on Abbeville Bridge" »

In Catalyst Old River Hydroelectric Limited Partnership v. Ingram Barge Co.; American River Transportation Co., the 5th Circuit revisits the decision made by the U.S. Supreme Court in Robins Dry Dock Co. v. Flint, 275 U.S. 303(1927): a foundational precedent for both maritime law specifically, and modern negligence law, generally. In Robins, the Supreme Court articulated a rule that has endured to this day and has significantly influenced general negligence jurisprudence; namely "there can be no recovery for economic loss absent physical damage to or an invasion of a proprietary interest." In TESTBANK (1985) the 5th Circuit reaffirmed the Robins rule that the court has consistently applied whenever circumstances necessitate doing so. After reviewing the rules from Robins and TESTBANK, the court in Catalyst applies these rules to the facts of the case.

On December 24, 2007, two tug boats with barge tows collided on the Mississippi River 2.5 miles upriver from the intake channel to the Sidney A. Murray hydroelectric plant. M/V Dan McMillan and its tow was operated by Defendant ARTCO, and M/V John Donnelly and its tow was operated by Defendant Ingram Barge Co. Several barges broke free from the tow of the Dan McMillan, including Barge TILC-37. Barge TILC-37 then drifted down river into the intake channel of Catalyst's facility and became grounded on the east bank of the intake channel, lodged against the station and abutment. The physical presence of Barge TILC-37 obstructed the intake channel which provides water to the turbine/generators of the electric power generation facility."
Because of the location of the barge, Catalyst had to reduce the flow of water in the intake channel to the turbines; and thus its output of electricity. This was necessary to prevent the barge from sinking and to allow safe access to the barge for its removal. Catalyst had to shut down six of the turbines and reduce the output of the remaining two because of the decrease of water coming into the intake channel. This allowed for the safe removal of the barge. Catalyst restored normal capacity to the plant at 6:30 p.m. on the 25th.

It is important to note that the power station is located "in a channel off the river. Catalyst owns the station and the surrounding property necessary for its operation. This includes the banks of the Mississippi River, the intake channel and the abutment on which the dam structure sits. The intake channel and a small island located in the mouth of the intake channel where it meets the Mississippi River are functional elements of the hydroelectric facility, acting as a pipe would to direct water into the station's eight turbines in order to produce electricity."
Catalyst filed a suit in Louisiana state court seeking damages for the value of the electrical power it was unable to generate due to the intrusion of the barge. The Defendants removed the case to federal district court. The defendants motioned for summary judgment and it was granted. Catalyst appealed and the 5th Circuit decided the appeal.

The Defendants' argued that Catalyst did not suffer any physical harm, and cited Reserve Mooring Inc. v. American Commercial Barge Line 251 F. 3d 1069 (5th Cir. 2001) as a controlling precedent. In Reserve a barge sank while anchored to a midstream mooring facility on the Mississippi River, blocking the site and rendering it unavailable for use by other vessels for 3 months. Reserve sued seeking lost revenue. "Because the sunk barge only interfered with Reserve's business expectancy by preventing other vessels from mooring at the facility for a period of time, this court (5th Circuit) concluded that Reserve's claim for purely economic damages must be denied."

The main thrust of the Defendant's argument is that there was no physical damage done to the intake channel or the rest of Catalyst's facility. Thus, they argue that Catalyst did not suffer any physical injury to a proprietary interest which is the requirement for recovery of economic losses. Also, the Defendants "presented no evidence that the barge did not disrupt the water flow, which everyone agrees is critical to Catalyst's operations", nor did they contest "the basic facts of the ownership and design of the facility": both of which are essential features of the support for Catalyst's claim.

Catalyst argued that its facility did suffer physical damage because "the presence of the barge in the intake channel, which is a functional component of Catalyst's hydroelectric facility interfered with the unobstructed continuous flow of water in the channel, impairing the ability of the facility to operate as designed." The following from an answer by Catalyst in the Defendant's Statement of Uncontested Material Facts sums up the reasons that Catalyst suffered property damage to a proprietary interest.

"The intake channel is Old River's private leasehold property and is the conduit portion of the facility which directs water into the turbines which power the Old River Station. The barge's physical entry into Old River's private leasehold property, its running aground on Old River's leasehold property, the physical recovery effort to secure and remove the barge from Old River's private leasehold property obstructed the conduit, thereby damaging it and physically preventing Old River from using its only source of power for its generators"

The court recognized that the interference with the water flow to the intake channel, hindered Catalyst's use of the facility. The court also recognized the recovery effort as a reason to support Catalyst's claim of damages. Remember, the water had to be restricted to the degree that six turbines were shut down and the remaining two reduced in power output so that the barge could safely be recovered by a tug boat. The decision states "the physical recovery effort to secure and remove the barge from the intake channel required a reduction in the flow of water necessary for the turbines to operate properly and generate the power they were designed to generate." A rule distilled from these facts was articulated by the court in the following: "Acts taken in mitigation to prevent permanent physical damage can serve as the physical damage requirement in the TESTBANK rule." Also, "costs incurred to mitigate damages satisfy the physical damage requirement of TESTBANK."

The court decided for Catalyst and concluded "that the entry of ARTCO's barge into Catalyst's privately owned hydroelectric facility caused physical damage to Catalyst's property and invasion of its proprietary interest. As co-licensees of the Sidney A Murray hydroelectric plant, the people of the town of Vidalia should be happy with the decision.

The Town of Vidalia and the Parish of Concordia have the honor and distinction of being the beneficiary and location, respectively, of the largest prefabricated power plant in the world and the first hydroelectric power plant in the State of Louisiana. In 1990 the Sidney A. Murray Jr. hydroelectric station was prefabricated at the Avondale Shipyard in New Orleans, and floated 208 miles upriver to its current location: 40 miles south of Vidalia. The facility sits one mile north of the Army Corp of Engineers Old River Control Complex between the Mississippi River and the Red Atchafalaya River, producing 192 megawatts by utilizing the flow of 170,000 cubic feet per second of water past eight hydroelectric turbines. The project is remarkable not just because it is the first hydroelectric plant in Louisiana, and the largest prefabricated hydroelectric plant on the planet; but it is also the product of a multinational collaboration, it produces clean and renewable energy for Vidalia, and the town of Vidalia is a co-licensee of the project. In addition to the obvious benefits of clean and renewable energy and the employment that the Sidney A Murray Jr. project bestows on Vidalia and the Parish of Concordia; the citizens of Vidalia also benefit from "stabilized energy rates" that they receive with the operation of the plant.

Catalyst Old River Hydroelectric Limited Partnership v. Ingram Barge Co.; American River Transportation Co. is a particularly interesting case for those living in Concordia Parish because it is a maritime tort case involving the Sidney A. Murray Hydroelectric Plant. The case is important because it includes a review of the standards for damage requirements established in Robins Drydock and Repair Co. v. Flint 275 U.S. 303 (1927) and reaffirmed in Louisiana ex. rel. Guste v. M/V TESTBANK 752 F.2d 1019 (5th Cir. 1985). After reviewing Robins and TESTBANK, the 5th Circuit then applies the Robins test to the particular facts of the case. This will be a two part discussion: the first part will identify and discuss the test developed in Robins and evaluated in TESTBANK. The second part will discuss how the 5th Circuit applied the Robins test to the facts of the Catalyst case.

In 1927 the United States Supreme Court decided Robins Dry Dock and Repair Co. v. Flint. This case established "the general proposition that claims for pure economic loss are not recoverable in tort." This decision has profoundly impacted not just maritime tort law, but general negligence law as well; with extremely broad implications and applications that resound to this day, over 80 years later. " No single decision in American tort law has more dominated the analysis of liability for pure economic loss than Robins Dry Dock Repair Co. v. Flint." Justice Holmes "denied the plaintiff, a time charterer recovery for financial loss which resulted from the defendant's interference with the plaintiff's use of the chartered vessel." The following hints at the scope of the effects of the decision.

"As many have noted, this denial of liability went sharply against the current of the overwhelming tendency of modern negligence law 'that pushed liability for physical injuries toward the full extent of what was foreseeable and shattered ancient barriers to recovery based on limitations associated with privity of contract and similar restrictive concepts'. Yet in the face of modern negligence law and notwithstanding that Robins was a case of admiralty, the decision remains, overwhelmingly, the majority view and represents the longest standing and most influential statement in American tort law of what has come to be called 'the economic loss rule'".

In the present case, the 5th Circuit articulates the Robins rule in the following: "It is well settled under the general maritime law that there can be no recovery for economic loss absent physical damage to or an invasion of a proprietary interest."

To resolve the issue in Catalyst, the 5th Circuit has to apply the Robins rule to the facts of the case. An analysis of the application of this rule to the facts will be discussed later. However, the Court very succinctly makes the relevance of Robins to Catalyst clear in the following statement in, and about, Catalyst:

"the question in this case is whether Catalyst suffered such damage to its proprietary interest in its hydroelectric station as to satisfy this test and justify the recovery of the economic damages Catalyst seeks in this court."

As the above quotation about Robins makes clear, the Robins decision "remains, overwhelmingly, the majority view" that has existed since 1927. Curiously and serendipitously, the same court deciding Catalyst, the 5th Circuit of Louisiana, "engaged in an extensive debate over the continued vitality of Robins and concluded (despite five dissenters) that it remained good law." In the State of Louisiana ex. rel. Guste v. M/V TESTBANK (1985) two ships collided on the Mississippi River, resulting in a toxic chemical release and the closure of an outlet on the Mississippi River for approximately 19 days. A variety of entities were adversely affected by this closure which compelled those adversely affected to file numerous lawsuits. These lawsuits were "consolidated before the same judge in the Eastern District of Louisiana". The defendants were granted summary judgment "on all claims for economic loss unaccompanied by physical damage to property." On appeal an en banc panel of the 5th Circuit affirmed the decision.

In TESTBANK, the 5th Circuit reaffirmed Robins; articulating specifically that "physical damage to a proprietary interest is a prerequisite to recovery for economic loss in cases of unintentional maritime tort." The 5th Circuit described the rule in Robins as a pragmatic rule that prevents "open ended liability" in cases where "a plaintiff has no proprietary interest in property that is physically damaged." The court recognized the Robins rule as effective in helping the trier of fact to avoid arbitrary judgments by having a "bright line rule" that places a "determinable measure on the limit of foreseeability" and that "allows for extensive losses....to be spread over first party or loss insurance." The court emphasized the pragmatic effects and benefits of the Robins rule in TESTBANK.

In Catalyst the 5th Circuit revisited both the Robins decision (by applying the rule) and its own decision in TESTBANK (the reaffirmation of the Robins rule). The Court relied upon Robins and TESTBANK as precedents for Catalyst, creating consequences for the Parish of Concordia and the town of Vidalia. In Catalyst, the 5th Circuit cites Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corp. v Marshland Dredging Co,. 455 F.2d 957 (1972), Dick Meyers Towing Service, Inc. v. United States, 577 F. 2d 1023 (1978), and Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. M/V BAYOU LACOMBE, 597 F. 2d 469 (1979) as examples of the "consistent application of the rule stated by the majority in TESTBANK 'that there can be no recovery of economic loss absent physical injury to a proprietary interest.' "

A significant dimension of Catalyst is the review of Robins and TESTBANK standards for recovery. Considering the influence of Robins and the fact that this rule was perpetuated and reemphasized in TESTBANK, the combination of these cases provide powerful precedents that will demonstrate their influence in Catalyst. The application of these precedents to the facts of Catalyst will be very interesting and compelling.

In any workplace, an on-the-job injury can have serious repercussions, both medical and legal, for the injured employee and their employer. However, if the injured employee is a seaman, additional maritime laws and standards may apply when an injury occurs. For individuals working on ships, in shipyards, or in any industry covered by maritime law, knowledge of the protections and specific laws which apply in the event of injury is pivotal in order to be able to protect oneself.

The recent Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeals case of Graham v. Offshore Specialty Fabricators, Inc. and Cashman Equipment Co. illustrates the importance of understanding the Jones Act, a federal law allowing seamen injured on the job to sue their employers, and claims alleging unseaworthiness of vessels. Graham was injured while working with a barge fleet on the Atchafalaya River near Morgan City, Louisiana. He and a co-worker were charged with the task of securing their employers deck barge. During this process, they needed to move other barges owned by Cashman Equipment Co. They crossed the deck of one such barge in order to reach and release the ship’s towline. Unbeknownst to the men, there were two large holes on the ship’s deck. Both men fell through one of the holes and both were seriously injured. Graham sued, and the lower court found in his favor. A jury awarded him damages. Both plaintiff and defendant appealed.

Graham brought his personal injury suit under the Jones Act. The Jones Act applies to any seaman who is injured or killed on the job and establishes his or her right to bring a civil action against an employer. The potential liability of the employer extends to all personal injuries sustained on the job, but the employee must prove negligence in order to recover. The duty of care owed by an employer under the Act is ordinary prudence. The ordinary prudence standard requires an employer to take reasonable care in maintaining a safe work environment under the circumstances particular to the case. To prove a claim of ordinary negligence, a claimant must prove that injury occurred and that the employer owed a duty to the injured, that the duty was breached, and that the breach caused the injury. The claimant must also show they themselves were exercising reasonable care in the course of their activities in order to recover. Graham presented evidence that the defendants were at fault for failing to properly maintain their ship deck. Based on this evidence, the appellate court held that the jury determination of damages on this issue should stand.

Graham also claimed unseaworthiness, citing the condition of the deck on the vessel which caused his injury. In maritime law, the owner of a ship has a duty to provide a seaworthy vessel. This duty is completely independent of the duty owed from an employer to an employee under the Jones Act. If the seaman making the allegation of unseaworthiness can prove that his injury was caused by the defective condition of the ship or its equipment, the employer is held strictly liable for the injury. Strict liability is applied without consideration of whether or not the employer exercised due care or was negligent. In other words, where the claimant can prove a violation to which strict liability attaches, the employer is held liable regardless of their actions. The claimant need only prove that the dangerous condition caused his injury in order to recover. The court in Graham’s case held he had sufficiently proven the condition of the ship caused his injury, and it held the jury’s damage award must stand.

If you or a loved one is employed in an industry covered by maritime law, it is imperative that you understand the often complex law which governs any injury that occurs on such a job. You need the services of an effective legal team to help you determine important issues such as whether you have a claim under the Jones Act. Contact the Berniard Law Firm online at laclaim.com and an attorney specializing personal injury will be able to assist you.

Continue reading "On-the-Job Injury at Sea: The Jones Act, Employer Negligence, and Claims for Unseaworthiness" »

Over the course of the last century, products liability law has become more detailed and specific in terms of protecting consumers from injury caused by products. If a product is found to be defective, in most cases any sellers along the chain of sale can be held liable. This means that, from the manufacturers to the retailer, all parties can be held liable if damage is caused by a product. The reason for this trend in the law is to give the benefit of the doubt to the consumer because the consumer needs protection. Further, stricter laws force manufacturers to produce better products. If they know that a defective product could potentially results in a multi-million dollar law suit, they will make sure the products they produce are safe.

This protection is especially true as it pertains to young children. Because children have less experience in life, there is a higher chance that they can make a mistake which would be unreasonable to make if it were an adult. However, even the law does not extend such benefits fully to all actions by children and teenagers. In a recent case, Payne v. Gardner, the Louisiana Supreme Court identified a point at which even a teenager could not be protected.

In 2004, in Rapides Parish, Henry Goudeau was playing around an oil well pump. The oil well pumps on oil wells move back and forth like a pendulum. As Henry was playing around the oil well pump, he noticed the movement of the pump and decided to use the pump as a pendulum type swing for recreational purposes. Afer he jumped on the pump when it reached its highest point, his leg got caught in another part of the pump which unfortunately lead Henry to be seriously injured. Henry's mother decided to sue the manufacturer of the pump, Lufkin Industries. A serious battle arose as to whom the blame should fall upon. Should Lufkin have know that their pumps would be used as a ride? Should Henry have used better care in making a determination of whether it was safe to ride on the pump?

In situations like this there can be no simple answer. However, the determination must be made with insight into the facts that existed at the time, and their relation to the law. At the trial court level, the court agreed with Lufkin. On appeal, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision. The case ultimately found its way to the Supreme Court. The products liablity act in Louisiana is as follows:

The manufacturer of a product shall be liable to a claimant for damage proximately caused by a characteristic of the product that renders the product unreasonably dangerous when such damage arose from a reasonably anticipated use of the product by the claimant or another person or entity.

Further, reasonably anticipated use is defined as, "a use or handling of a product that the product's manufacturer should reasonable expect of an ordinary person in the same or similar circumstances." Lukfin provided evidence that at the time the oil well pump was built, 50 years ago, the sole purpose of the pump was to extract oil. There was never any intent on the part of the company to make its pump available for recreational use. The Supreme Court agreed and stated that on the part of the company, riding the pump would not be a reasonable foreseeable use. Thus, Lufkin had met its burden of proving that it used care when creating its product.

Although Henry was unlucky in his tragic accident and his ultimate case, one can never know who is legally to blame for an injury caused by a product or a machine.

Continue reading "Oil Pump Injury Demonstrates Limits of Liability for Child's Injury" »

A gangway is a pathway that connects the ship to the dock at which it has stopped. It is the means by which the crew and cargo of a ship are moved onto and off of the ship. Usually ships have detachable gangways that the ship crew put on the side of the ship when the ship is docked. Other times, docks have policies that require the ships to use gangways that are provided by the dock owner. As in any other legal field, the use of gangways are subject to rules of negligence and duties of care. The question in a recent case, Landers v. Bollinger Amelia Repair, was whether a dock owner was liable for a gangway provided to a ship under the stated policy of the dock owner that all ships must use gangways provided by the dock.

On June 12, 2006, the M/V Roseanna docked on the Bollinger Amelia Repair (BAR) dock. The reason for docking there was that the Roseanna's hull had been breached, and it needed repair. The Roseanna had a gangway on its ship, but it was full of cargo and could not be used to access the dock. In any case, BAR had a policy of requiring all docked ships to use a BAR provided gangway. Thus, Landers, an employee of the Roseanna, and another Roseanna employee got a gangway from BAR and installed it.

The gangway was inspected by a Roseanna employee and was found to be in good condition. The gangway was used many times that day. The crew of the Roseanna discovered that the hull of the ship could be fixed without the aid of BAR and proceeded to do so. At the end of its use, the gangway was removed by Landers and another member of the Roseanna crew. Upon removal, the gangway sprung up hitting Landers in the back and causing injury. Subsequently, Landers brought suit against BAR arguing that due to BAR's stated policy of requiring the use of BAR gangways, BAR was liable for the injury caused to him under general Maritime negligence law.

Landers' argument was essentially that due to BAR's policy, BAR stepped into the vessel owner's shoes and thus assumed a maritime duty to provide a gangway free from hidden defects. The issue with Lander's case was that there was no case law that backed his claim. There were two ways in which Landers could have brought his claim. The first way was under general state negligence law. The problem with this approach was that the statute of limitations to bring this suit had already run. The other means was under general maritime negligence law. As stated above, there was no precedent upon which Landers rested his case. He essentially was asking the Court to expand the law with his claim. Although there was no case exactly on point, it is a well established that the gangway of a ship comes under general maritime law. Further, it is well established that the vessel owner has a fundamental duty to provide its crew members with a reasonably safe means of boarding and departing from a vessel. Furthermore, this duty of the vessel owner, that the vessel owner provide a seaworthy ship, is absolute and nondelegable. Thus, under general maritime law, if the dock owner is held liable for the gangway, the dock owner would also have to be the ship's owner. General maritime law is a law which relates to the vessel. Thus, it would be illogical to extend the protection of the crew members, which belongs to the vessel owner, to a dock owner unaffiliated with the ship or its crew. Thus, the Court held that there was no relationship between Landers and BAR to create liability under maritime law. Landers could bring suit under a state law theory, but Landers was out of luck on that claim because the statute of limitations had already run.

There may be many theories under which a case can be brought. Further, there may be different areas under which cases may fall. In Landers' case, he could have brought a state law and maritime law claim. However, because he waited too long to seek legal counsel, his state law claim expired and he was left with only a maritime law claim, which ultimately failed. Filing under both areas of law would have increased his chances of success. If you have been injured on the job, it is important that you seek legal counsel.

Continue reading "Court Outlines Responsibilities of Dockowner in Employee Injury" »

Resuming where we last left off in this important case...

The court then turned to the deposition of Rigoberto Garcia, an employee of Maxum. Garcia had testified that while he was at work the day before the accident, all safety barricades were set up. He said that Maxum employees never removed the safety barricades when they worked around or passed through the holes. Instead, they would climb over or through the cables. Garcia finally stated that he left work every day at 5 p.m. The depositions of two other Maxum employees supported Garcia's testimony. The combined testimony of these Maxum employees tended to show that the removal of the cables occurred when Maxum workers were not on site.

Finally, the court examined the testimony of Glenn Russo, an employee of Corrosion. Russo testified that his foreman, also an employee of Corrosion, had confirmed he'd been the one to place the plastic sheeting over the manhole. This admission effectively eliminated Maxum as the culprit behind the plastic sheeting that obscured the hole from Cotone's view.

Based on the above pieces of evidence and testimony, the court concluded that the removal of the safety cables occurred sometime in the evening. Because Maxum employees were typically away from the barge hole during the day, and home from work at night, it was not probable that a Maxum employee had removed the cables. This was buttressed by the Maxum employees' consistent testimony that neither of them removed the cables, nor ever witnessed them removed at any time. Furthermore, the admission of the Corrosion employee that the company's foreman had placed the plastic over the hole removed from the realm of possiblity the idea that a Maxum employee was to blame for that particular action.

Because the depositions and invoice showed that there was no genuine issue of material fact in regards to Maxum's alleged involvement in the removal of the safety cables and placing of the plastic, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of the company from the case. Accordingly, Corrosion was left to defend the suit by itself.

The Cotone case is instructive because it showcases the "divide and conquer" strategy a plaintiff can implement when he sues multiple defendants. For instance, once Corrosion and Maxum were named in the suit, Maxum ran for the exit door, as opposed to uniting its legal energies with Corrosion against the plaintiff, Cotone.

Whether or not a defendant will choose to become advesaries with another codefendant is often a matter of risk analysis. If the defendant in question is confident it can escape from the suit without much financial harm or exposure, it will likely do just that. On the other hand, if the facts squarely suggest some sort of negligent behavior on behalf of the defendant, it will often join forces with the other codefendant to create a united front against the plaintiff--or at the very least try to keep the more "innocent" codefendant from exiting the suit. After all, misery loves company.

A skilled attorney can a help a client determine which defendants should be sued when there are a multitude of negligent individuals available to choose from. By strategically selecting defendants who are solvent and who have a high likelihood of opposing one another, lawyers can maximize the recovery for their client.

Continue reading "Part 2: Case of Barge Accident Reveals Strategy to Prevent Plaintiff's from Winning Case" »

The Berniard Law Firm is proud to announce the release of an innovative new iPhone application that can be considered a must-have for individuals in the Gulf Coast. With extensive versatility and options including multiple contact points for our attorneys, as well as consistent site updates that will keep you informed of legal developments as they become available. Released October 26, we recommend everyone download the application in order to stay abreast of a variety of issues that relate to them.

In the works for some time, and with an update already planned, the Berniard Law Firm iPhone app puts law matters that are important to Louisiana residents in the palm of their hands. Constantly refreshing, with updates relating to our website, this application is an effort by our firm to allow our friends and clients quick access and up-to-date information for their daily lives. Whether using the application to send our firm a legal question or to call our offices, we strongly encourage anyone that wants an attorney and a wealth of legal information at your fingertips.

Specifically, the Berniard Law Firm Injury Attorney iPhone App provides users
- Entry page to record important details in the event of an accident
- Minimal size installed (only 3.1 MBs)
- Practice area explanations
- Quick jumps to consistently updated blogs
- Fast contact information to speak with an attorney

One feature that is extremely important and valuable in the Berniard Injury Attorney App is the entry page. Composed of data input fields that target inherently important details of an accident, using this portion of the application can help you make sure you record all of the necessary information at a time in which it maybe be difficult to remember. Providing an easy, step-by-step accident guide, this application can even include a picture with the information report with a simple tap.

For more information on how to download this application, or to discuss your legal rights regarding an issue that you are facing currently, contact our offices today. The Berniard Law Firm would happily discuss with you what opportunities you may have within the realm of the law, as well as give you a free consultation in regards to how we can best get you the justice you deserve.

To download the application, click here.

A recent Louisiana Court of Appeals < a href="http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=inlaco20100519282" > decision provides a good discussion of the burden of proof required in Jones Act cases.

James Bancroft worked as a seaman on the M/V Captain Nick owned by Mitchell Offshore Marine when the ship collided with the Pan Am Caribe. Mr. Bancroft was thrown violently, and broke ribs and punctured a lung. The court ruled that the vessel was not seaworthy and therefore Mitchell owed Bancroft $65,000 in general damages as well as $8250 for wage loss. The trial court did not agree with Bancroft that the accident had aggravated a prior back injury. On appeal, Bancroft asserted that the trial court erred in applying the incorrect burden of proof to the causal element of his case, finding his spine injuries and spinal fusion were not caused by the accident, awarding unreasonably low damages for his injuries, and failing to award punitive damages against Mitchell, while Mitchell claimed the trial courts damage award was too high.

Under the Jones Act, seaman are provided with the same rights railway employees have under the Federal Employers' Liability Act which provides that "every common carrier by railroad . . shall be liable in damages for such injury or death resulting in whole or in part from the negligence of any of the officers, agents, or employees of such carrier." 45 U.S.C. § 51. Under the Jones Act, seaman can recover when their employers' negligence causes their injury. The standard of causation in both FELA and Jones Act cases is very low. The Supreme Court has used the word "slightest" to describe the standard of causation between employer negligence and employee injury. This means that if employer negligence played any part in producing injury or death, the employer will be held liable

In this case, Mitchell argued that the "slight" standard of causation required proof of that negligence by preponderance of the evidence, the more likely than not standard. However, because the case that Mitchell relied on goes against years of precedent, the Court of Appeals disagreed. As such, Bancroft only needed to prove that the injury he sustained was linked to Mitchell's negligence by slight evidence. According to the Maritime Case of Stevens v. Omega Protein, Inc.:

Under the Jones Act and the general maritime law, when the defendants' act aggravates or accelerates a pre-existing condition and renders a plaintiff unable to continue his work or awakens a dormant conditions that causes a plaintiff to experience pain when he did not suffer from pain or disability prior to the aggravation, defendant can be liable in full for the disability caused."

As long as the plaintiff can prove a causal connection between the injury and the accident by the slight evidence standard the defendant will be held liable. The Court of Appeals found that the trial court here applied the correct burden of proof despite its use of the phrase "preponderance of the evidence."

Bancroft also contended that the trial court erred in not finding that his spine injuries and surgical collision and again the Court of Appeals disagreed. The trial court set forth detailed reasons for their judgment and accurately describe Bancroft's history of back problems, dating back to 1997 when he first visited a doctor for back pain. The history indicated that Bancroft had recurrent bouts of lower back pain, casting doubt on his claim that a latent problem was made symptomatic by the accident. Bancroft's doctor was even of the opinion that the surgery he performed was for the injury that had been diagnosed prior to the accident. The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court's exhaustive reasoning that the back injury and surgery were not caused by the accident. Bancroft failed to prove that his injury resulted from the accident, even by the slight standard of causation.

Even though the injury and surgery were not caused by the accident, however, the Court of Appeals found that the trial court did err n finding that no back pain was caused by the accident. It is clear Bancroft did suffer some back pain as a result of the accident, and this affected the Court's determination regarding the trial court's general damage award.

While damage awards are entitled to great weight and should rarely be reversed, the Court of Appeals found that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding damages to Bancroft for rib and chest injuries only. Medical records clearly showed that some back pain came from the accident. As such, the Court of Appeals awarded Bancroft an additional $25,000 in general damages for suffering he suffered related to back pain from the crash.

As this case demonstrates, the evidential standard required in Jones Act cases is very low, but there still must be a causal link between the accident and an injury upon which the plaintiff seeks to recover damages. If you are a seaman injured while at work it is essential you have an attorney who is able to demonstrate to a court that your injuries did in fact result from the accident and not some pre-existing condition.

In October 2007, a Norco tankerman was injured aboard the M/V DUSTIN CENAC at dock #2 of the Valero Corporation's facility in Norco. The tankerman was completing the loading procedure of the barge when the Valero dock man prematurely began lifting the loading arm and he was pinned between the arm and a winch on the barge. He brought suit against his employer and owner of the barge, Cenac towing, and Cenac filed a motion for summary judgment. The motion was granted on February 12 when a Federal judge ruled that no issue of material fact existed as to whether they were negligent.

The Jones Act provides seaman with a cause of action for injuries that result from an employer's negligence. To prove negligence, the injured party must prove that the employer had a duty to them which was breached and that the breach was the cause and proximate cause of the accident. Proving proximate cause goes beyond merely proving that without the breach of duty the injury would not have occurred but also that the injury naturally and foreseeably resulted from the breach.

In this case the judge found that nothing in the complaint or depositions showed negligence on the part of Cenac. While the injured tankerman's attorney suggested possible negligence by the Valero employee and suggested the vessel may have been unseaworthy due to a malfunctioning loading arm, the tankerman testified that nothing done by the Cenac's crew did anything to contribute to his injury.

Cenac towing was not the only defendant in this lawsuit. When an injured individual chooses to bring a Jones Act case, their attorney must carefully consider which parties to include in the claim and ensure that liability can be proven under the law with respect to each party. Proving negligence under the Jones Act is complex and requires experienced counsel. If you have questions about the elements of a Jones Act claim we would be happy to discuss them with you. Please call usToll-Free at 1-866-574-8005.

Maritime law has been around for a long time. Ever since boats have been used to move goods there has been a need for laws governing their transport. Because of its long history, maritime law is very complex and involves a lot of international, federal, and state laws. The first official U.S. maritime law was the Judiciary Act of 1789 that put jurisdiction over this area of law within federal courts.

The Jones Act, or Section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, passed in 1920 is another very important piece of Maritime law. This law officially codifies the rights of seaman. The latest version of this law passed Congress in 2006. Under the Jones Act seaman can bring lawsuits against their employers in either state or federal court and are entitled to a jury trial. Many find protection in federal courts to be more advantageous, however. Unlike international maritime law, the Jones Act gives seaman the right to pursue legal claims against ship owners based on negligence or unseaworthiness. The Act applies to employees who spend at least 30% of their time on a navigable vessel (although this requirement has been interpreted very broadly by courts). There is a three year statute of limitations for claims filed under the Jones Act. This means that if a claim is not filed within three years of when the injury occurred, it will be time barred.

With Louisiana’s long coastline, multiple ports, channels, waterways, and rivers, the Jones Act becomes very important. Shipping is a big industry here and recreational boating activities play a major role in the economy. Anyone who spends more than 30% of their work time onboard a vessel may be entitled to compensation under this law. This goes beyond what one might traditionally think of as "seaman" and includes inland river workers or anyone who spends significant time on floating or moving structures. Even certain onshore oil industry employees can be covered if they spend significant time on the back deck of a boat loading and unloading supplies. If an employee is killed while working their survivors may be entitled to compensation under the Act as well.

Compensation under the Jones Act can be a complicated matter and may be very dependent on the facts of the case. First, a seaman may receive what is called maintenance and cure. Maintenance and cure can be recovered for an injury or illness that occurred while a seaman was under a service contract of a ship whether or not the injury was actually sustained on the ship. Maintenance is the cost of room and board the seaman would have gotten on the vessel if he was not injured and begins the day the injured person left the vessel. Cure refers to medical expenses incurred as a result of the injury or illness. Second, individuals may be able to recover lost wages, or money they would have earned if they had not been injured. Finally, damages to compensate the seaman for his pain and suffering can be collected.

If you or someone your love was injured while working on some type of vessel you may be entitled to recover under the Jones Act. Your success will require excellent legal representation and an attorney who understands the intricacies of the law and is willing to conduct an intense factual investigation.

Continue reading "An Overview of Louisiana Maritime Law" »

Greek Seaman Dimitrios Keramidas’s ship was docked in East Charles Parish in 1999 when he became sick. He was hospitalized and treated for sepsis at East Jefferson General Hospital in Metairie for two months before he was sent back to Greece with medical approval. Keramidas never recovered and passed away in May 1999. His surviving widow and son brought suit under the Jones Act against Shipping and Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association Limited. The defendant was granted a summary judgment motion because the trial court found that “under the forum selection clause of the seaman's employment agreement, the country of Cyprus, not the United States, is the proper forum to bring the suit.” The 5th Circuit Louisiana Court of Appeals reviewed and affirmed the trial court’s decision.

Forum Selection Clauses

Even though states usually can enforce their own procedural rules and forum selection clauses are basically procedural, in admiralty cases, they are controlled by federal law.

Under federal law, forum selection clauses are presumed to be valid and should be enforced unless it is clear that enforcement would be unreasonable, unjust, fraudulent, or against a strong public policy of the state.

Potential Exceptions to Forum Selection Clause in this Case

1. The plaintiffs contended that forum selection clauses are against the public policy of the State of Louisiana. After all, in R.S. 23:921 A(2), the enforcement of forum selection clauses is expressly prohibited. However, admiralty cases are unique. R.S. 23:921 A(2) is part of the Labor and Workers' Compensation Section of the Louisiana Revised Statutes and is designed to protect Louisiana employees and employers, not foreign maritime workers. Had the legislature intended to protect foreign maritime workers they would have included a statement to that effect in the law.

2. The plaintiffs also argued the enforcement of the clause would be unreasonable because Mr. Keramidas was not a member of the union that negotiated the contract. The court does not accept this argument and cites several Louisiana cases where clauses were enforced despite the injured employee not being a union member. In addition, if the employee is a veteran seaman they should understand the employment contracts they sign.

3. The plaintiffs claimed that the clause is unenforceable because it leads to an unjust result. Here, the plaintiffs contend that they cannot afford to pursue the case in Cyprus. Specifically, to travel between Greece and Cyprus would cost more than the compensation that can be collected under the contract. While the compensation amount may be low by U.S. standards, the mere fact that the forum required in contract would not provide maximum recovery does not add up to injustice.

4. Finally, the plaintiffs contended that because Keramida’s widow and son were not parties to the employment contract, it does not apply to their claims. However the contract is clear in its intent to apply to both Keramidas and his family/survivors. The contract even specifically references the "seaman’s property administrator and/or seaman’s family members."

Although tragic, this case is a good example of how the courts have applied the Jones Act. In noting the exceptions it has made in the past to apply the Act to a variety of individuals, this case also demonstrates the wide variety of application possible.

Oftentimes, the most important question in an injury lawsuit is not "Can I recover?" Rather, the crucial questions involve whom to seek recovery from and where - i.e., in which court – to do that. Sometimes the answer lies simply in where the accident and injury occurred. However, as an older case from West Feliciana Parish indicates, proving that fact is not always as straightforward as it seems.

The case of Crum v. Southshore Railway Company, (230 So.2d 100 (1969)), revolves around the tragic drowning of John Floyd Crum. Mr. Crum was an employee of Southshore Railway Company. While working on a sand and gravel dredge, Crum fell into the water and drowned because he could not swim.Further, the boat on which he was working was not equipped with life-saving devices and was, generally speaking, poorly maintained.

From those facts, it would appear that Southshore would be legally responsible for the circumstances of Mr. Crum's death. However, this was not the issue that this particular case focused. Rather, the important issue was whether the court had jurisdiction over the matter. The jurisdiction issue would be determined by whether the case fell under the federal statute known as the Jones Act (46 U.S.C. § 30101) or under Louisiana’s Workmen's Compensation Act. The Jones Act permits injured seamen to recover damages from their employers for accidents that occur "on navigable waters." Thus, if Mr. Crum’s accident happened on a navigable body of water, his estate could seek damages from Southshore under the Jones Act. Otherwise, Mr. Crum's family and legal team would have to rely upon the state workers' compensation program.

Mr. Crum drowned in a pond near Highway 61 and Thompson's Creek, which divides East and West Feliciana Parishes. Mr. Crum’s representative's argued that the accident occurred in the waters of Thompson's Creek and that the creek, as a tributary of the Mississippi River, was a navigable water of the United States. The railway company argued the opposite, that the pond was not part of the creek and not navigable water. The court agreed with the employer, meaning that the Jones Act did not cover Crum's accident:

It is clear that the pond is not navigable, within any accepted definition of that term, nor was it created for any navigational purpose, nor is it connected with any body of water so as to permit the passage of boats of any size or to permit the conduction of commerce under the normal modes of travel and trade on water. Therefore... the law seems to be clear that this man-made pond on privately owned lands is not a navigable stream within the meaning of the Jones Act and general maritime law.

The Crum case illustrates how seemingly straightforward facts can alter the outcome of a lawsuit. Further, it illustrates the complexity of legal issues and what compensation a family might receive due to such a tragedy. It is important that persons who are injured have competent and conscientious counsel who will know how to properly address these decisive issues.

Continue reading "Case of West Feliciana Drowning Demonstrates Importance of "Navigability"" »

Timothy J. Rogers filed a lawsuit in Jefferson County Texas District Court against Marquette Transportation Co. Gulf-Inland, which is part of Marquette Transportation Company and based in Harahan.

The suit was filed on February 19th and regards injuries Rogers sustained on January 3rd while working aboard the Mary Kay. Rogers did not specify in the court documents how he was injured but states that the injuries were to his back and body. Smith blames the injuries on negligence and unseaworthiness and claims that due to his injuries he has incurred medical costs, pain and suffering, mental anguish, physical impairment and disfigurement, and lost earnings.

Under the Jones Act, (46 U.S.C. § 30104) injured seaman or their survivors may obtain damages from their employers if their employers, shipowners, captains, or fellow crew members, are deemed to have been negligent or if vessels they are working on are not seaworthy. The rights afforded by the Jones Act go beyond those provided by common international maritime law because they allow injured parties to bring claims in state or federal court and entitle them to a jury trial.

Not just anyone who works on a boat is considered a seaman with the right to bring a Jones Act claim, however. The Supreme Court in the 1995 case of Chandris, Inc. v. Lastis ( 515 U.S. 347 (1995)) found that workers who spend less than 30 percent of their time in the service of a vessel on navigable waters are presumed not to be seaman with Jones Act protection.

Even if a seaman brings a claim in state or federal court under the Jones Act, compensation is not guaranteed. Negligence or unseaworthiness must be proven. Negligence entails action or lack of action that fell below the standard of what a reasonable person should have done in the particular circumstances. Specifically, a negligence claim has four major elements of proof: duty, breach, causation, and damages.

First, the Defendant must have owed a duty to the plaintiff. Duty can be created by the relationship between the parties or it may be imposed by law. Second, the duty must have been breached. Third, the breach must have caused the injury. This means that without the breach of duty the injury would not have happened. In addition, the injury must have resulted naturally from the breach. Finally, the injury must have created compensable damages.

An injured seaman may also recover additional damages if the vessel he was on is determined to be "unseaworthy." Recovery for unseaworthiness can include compensation for medical bills, pain and suffering or impairment of earning capacity that resulted from the injury and can be attributed to the unseaworthiness. it is the duty of a shipowner to maintain their vessel. In addition to the condition of the ship, equipment or crew members can render the vessel unseaworthy as well.

If a seaman's injury was not due to the negligence of their employer or a problem with the vessel itself they may still be entitled to compensation. Seaman can recover maintenance and cure even if the owner of the ship did nothing wrong. As long as the seaman was in the service of the ship (even if not on board) when the accident occurred, maintenance and cure must be paid. "Maintenance” in this sense is a maritime term meaning room and board and it is a daily payment to the seaman to cover the cost of room and board which would otherwise be provided on the vessel. Maintenance begins on the date the seaman leaves the vessel because he has been injured. Maintenance payments continue until the seaman reaches a maximum medical cure. A cure is defined as the medical expenses paid by a shipowner when a seaman has been injured and is the seaman's right to medical treatment.

As you can see, while Jones Act claims can be complex, seaman have significant legal protections under the law. As such it is vital that they have competent, diligent representation.

A search was thrown into motion in mid February to find a missing tugboat, the Lil Au out of Houma. According to Petty Office Kevin Board of the U.S. Coast Guard, and as reported in an article on the Daily World's website,

the 52-foot tug was pushing a 140-foot crane barge south from Jonesville on the Atchafalaya River when it struck the railroad bridge at Krotz Springs about 8 p.m. Thursday night.

Jimmy Darbonne with the St. Landry Parish Sheriff’s Office, which assisted with rescue efforts, said the railroad bridge had opened to let the barge pass but the large crane on the barge struck the bridge anyway.

'That caused the rear of the tugboat to submerge,' Darbonne said. 'It was very cold, very rainy and very dark.'

Luckily, no one onboard was injured. The barge captain was able to swim ashore while the deck hand stayed on the barge and was later rescued by the Krotz Springs Fire Department. Both men were taken to a local hospital and released soon after. The boat is believed to have sunk or may have drifted further down the Atchafalaya River. According to Gary Solieau, director of the Port of Krotz Springs, the river is extremely high (unseasonably so for this time of year) and treacherous right now with very fast currents.

This potentially dangerous situation shows how seaman often put their lives on the line just by going to work. Luckily, they have legal protection. The Jones Act (46 U.S.C. § 30104) formalizes their rights by allowing injured seaman (or their survivors if a seaman has been killed) to obtain damages from their employers if their employers, shipowners, captains, or fellow crew members, are deemed to have been negligent The rights afforded by the Jones Act go beyond those provided by common international maritime law because they allow injured parties to bring claims in state or federal court and entitle them to a jury trial.

Not just anyone who works on a boat is considered a seaman with the right to bring a Jones Act claim, however. The Supreme Court in the 1995 case of Chandris, Inc. v. Lastis ( 515 U.S. 347 (1995)) found that workers who spend less than 30 percent of their time in the service of a vessel on navigable waters are presumed not to be seaman with Jones Act protection.

Continue reading "Tugboat Believed to Have Sunk Near Krotz Springs " »