Guy L. Neill, Jr. v. Diamond M. Drilling Co.

PER CURIAM:

This is an action for personal injuries under the general maritime law and the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 688. Plaintiff was a motorman on a drilling crew on Rig No. 21, owned and operated by defendant-appellant. At the time of plaintiff’s injury, Rig No. 21 was a submersible drilling barge bottomed in Corpus Christi Bay on navigable waters and engaged in drilling operations. The district court found that Rig No. 21 was a "vessel” within the meaning of the general maritime law and the Jones Act. That finding cannot be set aside as clearly erroneous or as contrary to law. Gianfala v. Texas Company, 1955, 350 U.S. 879, 76 S.Ct. 141, 100 L.Ed. 775, rev’g 222 F.2d 382 (5 Cir. 1955); Offshore Company v. Robison, 5 Cir. 1959, 266 F.2d 769; Producers Drilling Co. v. Gray, 5 Cir. 1966, 361 F.2d 432; Chenevert v. Clinch Drilling Co., E.D.La.1967, 273 F.Supp. 943. We do not agree with the appellant that the recent cases of Rodrigue v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 1969, 395 U.S. 352, 89 S.Ct. 1835, 23 L.Ed.2d 360, and Nacirema Operating Co. v. Johnson, 1969, 396 U.S. 212, 90 S.Ct. 347, 24 L. Ed.2d 371, impair the present validity of those decisions.

Plaintiff’s duties included general maintenance and care of the engines and generators during drilling operations, chipping and painting the vessel, and aiding in moving the vessel from its port near Corpus Christi to the drilling site. He did not live on the vessel but all of his work was performed aboard it in accomplishment of the vessel’s primary function as a drilling rig. The district court found that he was a “seaman” aboard the vessel and might properly pursue this action under the general maritime law and the Jones Act. That finding is clearly correct under the test articulated in Offshore Company v. Robison, supra, 266 F.2d at 779.

On adequate evidence the district court found the manner of plaintiff's injury as follows:

“On September 1, 1968, plaintiff was injured while working aboard Rig No. 21. At the time of the injury he had completed his normal duties as motorman and had been assigned to help stack a coil of %o inch cable known as a sand-line. This line had previously developed a kink on the drum and was being let out in order to straighten it. Immediately prior to the accident a signal was blown to summon the men coiling the sand-line to the floor of the rig to aid in adding another section of drill pipe to the drill stem. As the men started walking toward the floor the driller, L. M. Shaw, disengaged the sand-line drum, engaged the master clutch in order to kick in the draw works, and applied power to the drum. As power was applied, the sand-line drum suddenly engaged and began to rapidly take in the cable that had been coiled by plaintiff and others. Plaintiff was caught by the cable and lifted upward and into the framework of the rig some thirty or forty feet before dropping onto the rig floor. As a result plaintiff was injured and sustained certain damages.

"On the work shift prior to the accident the driller had tightened the sand-line clutch because it had been slipping. Although he reported this in the operations report, he did not inform Shaw of this and Shaw did not check the operations report before going to work. At the time of the accident the control lever to the sand-line drum was in the ‘disengaged’ or neutral position. However, when Shaw engaged the master clutch and applied power to the drilling cable drum the sand-line drum also engaged. This was due to the sand-line clutch being so tight as to prevent it from disengaging when the control lever was placed in the neutral position. In spite of this if Shaw had slowly engaged the master clutch in the proper manner before applying power he would have seen that the sand-line drum was still engaged. The evidence indicates that it was not uncommon for the sand-line clutch to remain engaged if the gaskets of the air-release valve became damp and dirty or if the clutch was too tight.”

The district court found that the driller on the prior shift was negligent in failing to inform Shaw that he had tightened the clutch on the sand-line drum, and that Shaw was negligent in failing to discover that fact by inspecting the operations report, and was further negligent in failing to gradually engage the master clutch in order to determine if the sand-line drum was properly disengaged, and that each of these acts of negligence was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries and damages. Those findings are amply supported by the evidence and are not clearly erroneous. That being true, the court’s further holding that the condition of the clutch mechanism rendered the vessel unseaworthy was not essential to the validity of the decision, and we need not determine whether the vessel was “in navigation” within the use of that term in making the warranty of seaworthiness applicable. See Rogers v. M/V Ralph Bollinger, E.D.La.1968, 279 F.Supp. 92, 94, 95, and cases there cited.

The district court found that the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent and that finding is not clearly erroneous.

The district court awarded damages in the total amount of $66,000.00 against which it credited $1,610.00 which had been paid plaintiff in compensation. The appellant insists that the court awarded excessive damages and allowed a double recovery. Plaintiff was 39 years of age at the time of the accident. His injuries were to his head, right ear, back and right leg. There was evidence that the injuries to plaintiff’s ear and to his back were permanent. The district court found that plaintiff had lost wages and earnings capacity which will probably extend to the end of his life; that he had suffered physical pain and mental anguish and will probably continue so to suffer to the end of his life. Finally the district court found that:

“As a direct and proximate result of his injury plaintiff has suffered a loss of physical capacity, other than his capacity to earn wages, which will in all reasonable medical probability continue to the end of his life.

“The present reasonable cash value of all compensable damages sustained by plaintiff as a direct and proximate cause of his injuries is $66,000.00 and plaintiff is entitled to recover judgment in that amount against defendant.”

The appellant complains that the court entered judgment for a lump sum without allocating damages to the various elements which the court considered. We are cited to no law requiring such an allocation, and in our opinon that is a matter within the discretion of the district court. The appellant insists that the award of damages for “a loss of physical capacity other than his capacity to earn wages” allows a double recovery. On motion for new trial the district court found that no double recovery was awarded plaintiff, that the various elements of compensable damage are separate and distinct, that each element is supported by the evidence, and that the defendant’s dissatisfaction with the form of the findings and conclusions did not require the court to assign specific dollar values to each element of damage. We cannot hold the award of damages clearly erroneous nor the denial of the motion for new trial an abuse of discretion. The judgement is

Affirmed.