In Re: Falcon Workov ( 2001 )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 00-30905
In Re: In the Matter of the Complaint of FALCON WORKOVER COMPANY,
INC. doing business as Blake Workover & Drilling Company, as
owner of Rig 19, Official Number 560963, Petitioning for
Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability,
Petitioner,
------------------------------------------
UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS OF LONDON; HIH CASUALTY & GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, COMMERCIAL UNION ASSURANCE COMPANY PUBLIC
LIMITED COMPANY; THE MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD; ASSURANCES
GENERALES DE FRANCE I A R T; YORKSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD;
INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE CO OF HANOVER LTD; GAN INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED; THE THREADNEEDLE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD; SKANDIA MARINE
INSURANCE COMPANY (U K) LTD; ARIG INSURANCE CO LTD; ASSICURAZIONI
GENERALI, S P A; AXA GLOBAL RISKS (UK) “T” A/C; ALL AMERICAN
MARINE SLIP; AIG OIL RIG
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
and
R & B FALCON DRILLING CO
Movant-Appellant,
VERSUS
UNIVERSAL MACHINERY CO INC; ET AL
Defendants,
and
CATERPILLAR, INC;
Defendant-Appellee,
and
STEVEN L SANDERS,
Claimant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
(97-CV-2628)
June 26, 2001
Before SMITH, DUHÉ and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
In this limitation of liability proceeding R & B Falcon
Drilling Co. and its insurers (“Falcon”) sought to recover from
Caterpillar, Inc. (“Caterpillar”) damage to Falcon Rig 19 caused
by fire, and consequential damages resulting therefrom. Stephen
Sanders (“Sanders”), who was allegedly injured while escaping from
the rig fire, sought damages for his injuries. Following a bench
trial the district court found Falcon at fault. It awarded nothing
to Falcon and damages to Sanders. Falcon appeals. We have
considered the briefs and argument of counsel and appropriate parts
of the record and we affirm.
This appeal raises the following issues. Did the district
court err concerning: the cause of the fire; whether Sanders
suffered an accident while evacuating the rig; whether Sander’s
accident (if there was one) caused his injuries; and, if so, the
1
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under
the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
2
damages awarded to him? These issues question the factual findings
of the district court which we review only for clear error and
which we can reverse only if, after considering the record, we are
“...left with a firm and definite conviction that a mistake has
been committed.”2 Since the parties are familiar with the facts,
we do not restate them here.
Falcon’s claims against Caterpillar are brought pursuant to
general maritime law products liability theories and strict
liability under the Louisiana Products Liability Act, La. Rev.
Stat. Ann. § 9:2800.51-60 (West 2001).
Falcon first contends that the brazed fitting in the oil feed
line which caused the fire failed because it was not properly
brazed by Caterpillar and because it was subjected to excessive
vibration due to the lack of a securing clip. In addition to its
own evidence, Caterpillar relies on the cross examination statement
of Falcon’s expert witness that the braze must have been adequate
because the fitting lasted without failure or leak for 2,000 hours
of engine operation following the last overhaul without the clip.
The district court found the braze was adequate and that the lack
of the securing clip was a misuse by Falcon. Our examination of
the record does not establish that this finding was clearly
2
W.H. Scott Constr. Co. v. City of Jackson, Miss., 199 F.3d
206, 219 (5th Cir. 1999); see also Anderson v. City of Bessemer
City, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985); Canal Barge Co. v. Torco Oil Co.,
220 F.3d 370, 375 (5th Cir. 2000).
3
erroneous.
Next Falcon contends that the district court clearly erred in
finding that Sanders hit his head while fleeing the burning rig.
It relies primarily on five separate items of evidence. The court
believed Sanders based upon his testimony and that of witnesses
Bourque and Roth. It is clear from the record, and in particular
from statements by the court during the hearing on the Motion For
New Trial, that this was simply a credibility call by the court.3
We see no error.
Alternatively, Falcon contends that even if Sanders did have
an accident it was not the cause of his cervical injury, and
offers, inter alia, the argument that the court ignored the
evidence of Dr. Cenac. The record shows, and the district court
found, that Dr. Cenac did not examine Sanders, and that Doctors
Bernard, Juneau, Lindermann and Gidman all agreed that the delay in
onset of symptoms was not unusual and, in response to the proper
question, that the accident was the cause of Sander’s injury.
These findings were not clearly erroneous.
As to the contention that the award of damages was excessive,
we note that, while had we been the trial judge we may have awarded
something less, the high hurdle of clear error is not met by the
3
Canal Barge Co. v. Torco Oil Co., 220 F.3d 370, 375 (5th Cir.
2000) (“The burden of showing that the findings of the district
court are clearly erroneous is heavier if the credibility of
witnesses is a factor in the trial court’s decision.”) (citation
omitted).
4
facts of this case. The district court carefully considered each
separate element of the award and provided reasons therefor that
are adequately supported by the record.
AFFIRMED.
5