COURT'S RULING ON JONES ACT CLAIM AFFIRMED DESPITE EMPLOYER'S MOTION TO RECUSE THE TRIAL JUDGE BECAUSE HE AND THE SEAMAN'S COUNSEL WERE FRIENDS...
COURT'S RULING ON JONES ACT CLAIM AFFIRMED DESPITE EMPLOYER'S MOTION TO RECUSE THE TRIAL JUDGE BECAUSE HE AND THE SEAMAN'S COUNSEL WERE FRIENDS, THE SEAMAN'S COUNSEL HAD REPRESENTED THE JUDGE IN AN ELECTION DISPUTE, THE SEAMAN'S COUNSEL HAD HELPED WITH THE JUDGE'S JUDICIAL CAMPAIGN AND THE SEAMAN'S COUNSEL'S IN-LAWS HAD PURCHASED THE JUDGE'S FORMER OFFICE BUILDING.
HAROLD YOUNCE VERSUS PACIFIC GULF MARINE, INC. AND ABC INSURANCE COMPANY
NO. 01-CA-546
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FIFTH CIRCUIT
01-546 (La.App. 5 Cir, 04/10/02);
2002 La. App. LEXIS 991
April 10, 2002, Decided
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff seaman sued defendant employer in the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Court, Jefferson Parish (Louisiana), for damages under the Jones Act and general maritime law for injuries incurred unloading a vessel, and attorney fees because the employer stopped his maintenance and cure payments. The employer's motion to recuse the trial judge was denied. Judgment was awarded to the seaman for damages and attorney fees. The employer appealed.
OVERVIEW: The employer argued that the trial court erred in denying its recusal motion because the trial judge and the seaman's co-counsel were personal friends, co-counsel had helped with the judicial campaign, co-counsel had represented the judge in an election dispute, and co-counsel's in-laws had purchased the judge's former office building. The trial judge stated their friendship had been disclosed. The appellate court saw no reason to disturb the ruling on the motion to recuse the trial judge. The employer also argued that the trial judge's findings of unseaworthiness and negligence were manifestly erroneous, the findings regarding medical causation and lost income were not correct, and they disputed the amount of the general damage awards and the finding that the seaman was entitled to attorney's fees on the maintenance and cure claim. Finally, they raised several errors regarding the admission of evidence during the trial. The appellate court found no manifest error in any of the trial judge's findings or rulings. The appellate court noted that the trial judge's findings were amply supported in the record.
OUTCOME: The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment.
