SEAMAN FOUND 90% CONTRIBUTORILY NEGLIGENT WHEN HE WAS STRUCK FROM THE REAR BY LEAD TONGS HE WAS OPERATING DESPITE SEAMAN'S ARGUMENTS THAT THE TONGS WERE HUNG IMPROPERLY AND THAT A COWORKER FAILED TO PREVENT THE ACCIDENT.
CARL AYCOCK VERSUS ENSCO OFFSHORE COMPANY
NUMBER 2002-0853 COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, THIRD CIRCUIT
2002-0853 (La.App. 3 Cir, 12/18/02);
2002 La. App. LEXIS 3926
December 18, 2002, Decided
PRIOR HISTORY: APPEAL FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT. PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. 982046. HONORABLE J. BYRON HEBERT, DISTRICT JUDGE.
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff employee challenged a judgment from the Fifteenth Judicial District, Parish of Lafayette (Louisiana), which found that defendant offshore company was negligent in injuries the employee sustained while working aboard an oil rig and that the vessel was unseaworthy, but apportioned 90 percent of the fault for the injuries to the employee.
OVERVIEW: The employee sustained serious injuries when he was struck from the rear by the lead tongs he was operating. The employee argued that the offshore company was responsible for his injuries under general maritime principles and the Jones Act due to improperly hung tongs and a coworker failing to prevent the tongs from striking him. The offshore company argued that the operator was responsible for control of the tongs. A jury found that the offshore company was negligent and that the vessel was unseaworthy, but that the employee was contributorily negligent. General damages, past lost earnings, and future loss of earnings were awarded, reduced by 90 percent for the employee's fault. On appeal, the court affirmed. The entirety of the evidence permitted the jury to conclude, even in light of findings of unseaworthiness and negligence, that the employee bore a substantial amount of the fault in the accident. The employee, as lead tong operator, was primarily responsible for his own safety. The jury was free to conclude that the future damages awarded would compensate the employee while he continued toward maximum medical cure and after that time the employee could return to other work.
OUTCOME: The court affirmed the apportionment of fault and the award of damages to the employee in his maritime action.
Bookmark: 
