Triggs v. R & B Falcon Drilling USA, Inc. , 71 F. App'x 325 ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 4, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-30794
Summary Calendar
DWAYNE TRIGGS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
R&B FALCON DRILLING USA, INC.; ET AL.,
Defendants,
R&B FALCON DRILLING USA, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 01-CV-1754-C
--------------------
Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Dwayne Triggs brought suit pursuant to the Jones Act,
46 U.S.C. app. § 688, and general maritime law for injuries
sustained while he worked on an offshore oil rig. The jury
awarded damages for pain and suffering, but it did not award
any amount for lost wages.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 02-30794
-2-
On appeal, Triggs challenges the district court’s refusal
to allow the introduction of the deposition testimony of Kenneth
Wiggins. Triggs, however, did not adequately show Wiggins’s
unavailability and has not shown that the district court erred in
determining that the jury could not evaluate Wiggins’s credibility.
We find no abuse of discretion. See FED. R. CIV. P. 32(a)(3)(D);
Bobb v. Modern Products, Inc., 648 F.2d 1051, 1055 (5th Cir.
1981), overruled on other grounds, Gautreaux v. Scurlock Marine,
Inc., 107 F.3d 331 (5th Cir. 1997).
Triggs also argues that the district court erred in refusing
to allow him to impeach a defense expert’s testimony with the
deposition of Wiggins, which the expert admitted he had reviewed.
A review of both the expert’s testimony and Wiggins’s deposition
shows that the expert’s testimony was not inconsistent with
Wiggins’s deposition testimony. We conclude this argument is
without merit.
Triggs argues that the jury’s failure to award any amount
for lost wages or lost meal benefits was contrary to the law
and evidence. Based upon our review of the record, we conclude
that the jury’s verdict should be affirmed because the facts and
inferences do not “point so strongly and so overwhelmingly in
favor of [Triggs’s claims] that reasonable men could not arrive
at any verdict to the contrary.” Granberry v. O’Barr, 866 F.2d
112, 113 (5th Cir. 1988) (internal quotation omitted).
AFFIRMED.