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,

and1 Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

2 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 l imitation of liability proceeding R & B Falcon

Drilling Co. and its insu rers (“Falcon”) sought to recover from

Caterpillar, Inc. (“Caterpillar”) damage to Falcon Rig 19 caused

by fire, and consequ ential 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 Sa nder’s

accident (if there was one) caused his injuries; and, if so, the2 W .H. Scott Constr. Co. v. City of Jackso n, Miss., 199 F.3d

206, 219 (5 t h 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 (5 th Cir. 2000).

3 damages awarded to him? These issues question the factual findings

o f 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 pro ducts liability theories and strict

l iability 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 mi suse by Falcon. Our examination of

the record does not establish that this finding was clearly3 Canal Ba rge Co. v. Torco Oil Co. , 220 F.3d 370, 375 (5 t h 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.”) (ci tation omitted).

4 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 w itnesses

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

somethi ng less, the high hurdle of clear error is not met by the5

facts of this case. The district court carefully considered each

separate element of the award and provide d reasons therefor that

are adequately supported by the record.

AFFIRMED.