VALIDITY OF VIDEOTAPED SEAMAN'S RELEASE IS QUESTION OF FACT PRECLUDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
ODILON CHACHA COTO; EDIBERTO HERNANDEZ HERNANDEZ; EMEDELIOH. TORRES; HECTOR R. GAMAS; NELLI R. OBANDO, ET AL. VERSUS J. RAY MCDERMOTT,S.A.; MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL INC.; THE AMERICAN BUREAU OF SHIPPING, INC.; CCCFABRIONES Y CONSTRUCTTIONES, ET AL.
NO. 99-CA-1866
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FOURTH CIRCUIT
99-1866 (La.App. 4 Cir, 10/25/00); 2000 La. App. LEXIS 2625
October 25, 2000, Decided
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiffs appealed from Civil District Court, Orleans Parish (Louisiana), summary judgments for defendants, dismissing their Jones Act and general maritime claims on the basis of seaman's releases executed by them in favor of defendants, challenging the validity of the releases.
OVERVIEW: Plaintiffs were 11 divers from a crew of 20 divers aboard a barge in Mexican waters when it sank in a storm. They were rescued and sent home at their employer's expense. Defendant employer subsequently met with plaintiffs to discuss settlement of their claims and hosted a banquet to celebrate their survival. Following the banquet, the men continued to celebrate with drinking. The next day, plaintiffs settled their claims with defendants and signed releases. Each settlement meeting was recorded on videotape. Defendants contended the videotapes proved plaintiffs had a complete understanding of what they were doing and intelligently and freely entered into the settlements. Plaintiffs contended the videotapes proved they were unfairly led or forced into settlements they did not understand. The court held this fact alone compelled the conclusion that there were genuine issues of material fact as to the subjective states of minds of the parties. The court reversed the grant of summary judgments to defendants, which had been based on the seaman's releases executed by plaintiffs, and remanded the case.
OUTCOME: Summary judgments were reversed and case remanded, as videotapes relied on by both sides to prove each side's position created genuine issues of material fact, including subjective state of minds, to be resolved by fact finder and therefore improper for summary judgment.
