Verdict For Son Of Deceased Seaman Who Was Killed In A Motor Vehicle Returning From Going To See An Oil Rig For Loss Of Nurture And Services; Employer Of Seaman Found Vicariously Liable For Driver Of Vehicle.
DIAMOND OFFSHORE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Appellant v. LELA GUIDRY, individually and as next friend of HUNTER GUIDRY and as Independent Administratix of THE ESTATE OF CRAIG GUIDRY, Appellees
NO. 09-01-367 CV
COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS, NINTH DISTRICT, BEAUMONT
2002 Tex. App. LEXIS 5219
April 4, 2002, Submitted
July 25, 2002, Opinion Delivered
PRIOR HISTORY: On Appeal from the 136th District Court. Jefferson County, Texas. Trial Case No. D-159, 548.
DISPOSITION: Affirmed.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant employer appealed an unfavorable jury verdict and judgment in the 136th District Court of Jefferson County, Texas, in a Jones Act death case that arose from an automobile accident in which an employee was killed. The action was brought Appellees, survivors of the deceased employee, one of whom acted in the capacity of the independent administratrix of the deceased employee's estate.
OVERVIEW: The decedent's employer was a company that provided work crews for offshore oilrigs. The decedent was killed when another employee lost control of his vehicle. The appellate court rejected the employer's argument that the trial court erred as a matter of law in denying its motion for partial remittitur and entering judgment based on the jury's award of $400,000 for decedent's son's loss of nurture and services. The award was not so large as to shock the judicial conscience. The appellate court also rejected the employer's argument that there was insufficient evidence the decedent was "on ship's business" at the time of his death. The appellate court concluded that if the crews' going to see another oil rig was "business related," then the return trip also was business related. Finally, the jury instructions clearly informed the jury of the requirement that the driver must have been acting in the course of his employment (or in the service of the vessel) for the employer to be vicariously and of the requirement that the decedent must have been acting in the course of his employment (or in the service of the vessel) in order to recover under the Jones Act.
OUTCOME: The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.
