Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 30259 Su m m ar y Cal endar

R IC KYV E A L S , P l a i n ti ff-A p p ell a n t v. N A U T IC A L A D V E N T U R E S , L L C ; P R ID E O F F S H O R E IN C

. , D efen da n t s- A pp el l ees

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i tedS tates D i stri ct C ou rt f ort he E as t er n D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U SD C N o. 2: 06- C V

- 3776

B ef ore H IG G IN B O T H A M , C L E M E N T an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * R i cky V eal s f

i l ed su i tf

or personali nj u ri es s u st ai n ed d u ri n g h i s t ran sport f rom an of

fshore oi lri g t o a nea rby vessel
. Follow in gV eal s’ s presentat i on of evi den ce at t ri al , t h e di st ri ct court gran t ed th e defen da n t s’R u l e 50(a) m ot i on f or j u d g m e n ta s amat t e ro f l a w. W e AF FI RM
. V eal s’ s cl ai m s stem fr om a n acci den ton the M /VC

- H E R O , a vesselow n ed
a n dop era tedb y d efen d a n t N a u ti ca lV en tu res, L L C

. A t t h e ti m e of the i n ci d en t, United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 29, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 30259

2 V eal s w as an em pl oye e o f Sper r y Sun/ K B R , w or ki ng as a s am pl e c at c heron an o f fs ho r e o i lr i g. Af

t e ra n a l t e r c at i o n w i t h a s upe r vi s o r , Veal s w as o r de r e d o f f t he ri g. In order t o reach t h e shore, V eal s f i rst h ad t o be t ran sferred i n a personn el bask etf rom t h e ri g t o t h e M /VC

- H E R O

. Th e cr an e used f or personn elbask et tr a n s p o r t w a s o p e r a te db yd e fe n d a n t P r id e O ffs h o r e , In c . V e a l s a lle g e d ly i n f orm ed a P ri de em pl oyee t h at h e h ad n ever ri dd en a personn elbask etbef ore, a n dd idn o t r e c e iv e a n yin s tr u c tio n o n th e p r o p e rw a yto e x it it
. V e a ls b o a r d e dth e b a s k e t, w h ic h a c c o r d in gto h is o w n te s tim o n ya t t r ia l, l and e d f

l ato n t he de c k o f

t he M /V C

- H ER O

. The s e a w as c al m , there w as no w i nd, a nd t he w e at he rw as c l e ar . St e ppi ng o f f, Vea l s pl ac e d b o t h feeto n t he shi p. H e t h en fel lbackw ards, sust ai n i n g persona li nj u ri es. Veal s b r o ugh ts ui ta ga i ns tN aut i c alVent ur e s , w hi c h was t he o w ne ra nd op era tor of t h e v ess el, an dag a i n st P ri d e, th e op era tor of th e p erso n n el ba sk et. A tt h e j u ry t ri al , V eal s t est i f i ed th a t P rid e fai l ed to f ol l ow i t s ow n procedu res t hatr e qui r e d e m pl o ye e s t o i ns t r uc t f i r s t
- t i m e r i de r s o n t he a ppr o pr i at e m e t ho ds f or get t i n go n an d of f

. Th ere w as no evidence of neg l i gen tm ai n t en an ce or o p e r a tio n o th e rth a n th e a b s e n c e o f in s tr u c tio n s to afir s t-t im e rid e r . A f t er V eal s pres e nt e d hi s c as e , de f e n da n t s m oved f

or j u dg m en tas a m att er of l aw . The j udge gr ant ed t he m ot i on , fi n di ng no e vi denc e t hatnegl i genc e b y e i t he rde fe nda ntc aus e d t he fal l and i nj ur y. O n ap pe al , Veal s do e s no t m ak e a ny argu m en tconcerni n g possibl e e rr o r i n gran t i n g j u dg m en tt o t h e vesselow n er. Thus , t he o nl y que s t i o n we m us ta ns w e ri s w he t he rt he r e w as err or i n t he j u d gm en t i n fa vo r of t h e op era tor of t h e p erso n n el ba sk et. W e re vi ew a g r antof j udgm entas a m at t erof l aw purs uant t o Ru l e 5 0 de
novo , a p p ly in gth e s a m e s ta n d a r du s e din th e d i s t r ic t c o u r t. R ut herf or d v. Har r i s County , Tex as , 1 9 7 F .3 d 1 7 3 , 1 7 8 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). In aju r ytr ia l, j u dg m en ta s a m att er of l aw i s app ropri ate w h ere a part y h as been f u l l y h eard on an i ss ue, and fac t s and i nfer enc es poi nts o s t r ongl y i n favorof one part y t hatN o. 09- 30259

3 rea son a b l e j u rors cou l d n ot a rrive at a con traryve rd i ct. W a lla ce v. Meth o d ist. Hosp. S ys. , 2 7 1 F .3 d2 1 2 , 2 1 9 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). Am e r e s c in tilla o f e v id e n c e is in s u ffic ie n t t o p r e s e n t a q u e s tio n fo rth e ju r y . Id
. H e r e , Vea l s al l e ge d i nj ur y unde rt w o se pa r at e st at ut e s . Fi r s t , he s o ugh t
r el i ef under Loui si ana t or tl aw . Thatl aw ope r at es a s sur r ogat e f ede r all aw p u r s u a n t t o th e O u te rC o n tin e n ta l S h e lf L a n d s A c t (“ O C S L A”). 4 3 U .S .C . § 1 3 3 1 , e ts e q . No i s s u e i s r a i s e dh e r e a s t o wh e t h e rOC S L A a p p l i e s , a n dt h u s we a c c e p t t h a t itd o e s a n dth a t itb o r r o w s L o u is ia n a to r t la w fo rth is ca s e . Th e L oui si ana C ivi lC ode provi des that“[ e] ver y ac tw hat eve rof m an t hat
c a u s e s d a m a g e t o a n o th e ro b lig e s h im b yw h o s e fa u lt ith a p p e n e dto re p a irit.” L A
. C IV . C ODE A NN . art. 23 1 5 ( 1 9 9 9 ). L ou i sian a cou rts h a ve i n terp reted th is
se ctio n to re q u ire p ro o f o f th e b a sic ele m e n ts of n e g li g e n ce . N a m e ly, ap la in tiff
m u s tp r o v e : (1 ) d e fe n d a n t h a dad u tyto co n fo r m h is co n d u c t t o as p e c ific
s t and ar d; ( 2) de fe nda nt ’ s c o nduc tfai l e d t o c o nf o r m t o t he ap pr o pr i at e s t and ar d; ( 3) def e nda nt ’ s s ubs t and ar d c o nduc tw asa cause- i n - factof t h e pl ai n t i f

f ’ s i nj u ri es; ( 4) defen da n t ’ s s u bstand ard cond u ctw as a legalcau se of t h e pl ai n t i f

f ’ s i nj u ri es; a n d(5 ) a c tu a l d a m a g e s . Perki n s v. E n t ergy Corp . , 782 So. 2d 606 , 611 (La. 2 0 0 1 ). F a ilu r e to p r o v e e v e n o n e o f th e s e e le m e n ts p r e c lu d e s r e c o v e r y . Mathi eu v. Imperi al T

oy Corp ., 6 4 6 S o . 2 d3 1 8 (L a . 1 9 9 4 ). T h e di st ri ctcou rtex pressl y assum ed t h at V eal s’ s fact u alal l egati on s w ere tru e. S p ecif

i ca l l y, th e c o u r t a ccep tedtha t P ri d e fail ed to give ins tru cti on s to V e a ls on th e pro ced u res f or exiti n g t h e ba sk et. T h e cau sa ti on i n q u i r y is
w h et h er, bu tf

or t h e defen da n t s’substand ard c o n du ct , t h e acci den tw ou l d n ot h a ve occu rred
. Pe r ki ns , 7 82 So

. 2 d a t6 11
. Vea l s di d no ta l l e ge t hatt he i ns t r uc t i o ns he s ho ul d ha ve r e c e ive d w o ul d hav e pr e ve nt e d t he t yp e o f i nj ur y he
s uf fe r e d. H e pr e s e nt e d e vi de nc e t hatPr i de t yp i c al l y i ns t r uc t e d r i de r s t o b e nd t he i rkne e s w he n t h e b aske tl and e d, b uthe di d no tt e s t i f y t hatPr i de
re co m m e n d e dp ro ce d u re s a p p lyin gto s te p p in go ff th e b a sk e t o n to th e d e ck of aN o. 09- 30259

4 ve s s e l
. Al t ho ugh he c l ai m e d t hatthe boatw as r o c ki ng w he n he f i r s tl and e d, Veal s di d no tpr e s e nte vi de nc e t hatt he bo at o pe r at o ra c t e d ne gl i ge nt l y, t hatt he
crane m al f

u n ct i on ed, or t h at t h e w eather w as i n cl em en t
. I n deed , un di spu t ed
e v id e n c e s h o w e dt h a t th e w e a th e rw a s c a lm a n dth e w in dw a s n o t b lo w in g . V e a ls
a d m itt e dth a t h e d idn o t k n o w h o w h is fa ll o c c u r r e d
. O n ap p ea l , V ea l s com p l a i n s th a t t h e tri a lj u d ge m a d e cre d ib i l i ty determ i n ati on s, w ei gh ed evi den ce, an d d i d n otdraw al lr e a so n a bl e i n ferences i n hi s fav o r . W e di s ag r e e . Al t ho ugh t he t r i alj udg e rec ou n t ed s o m e o f t he t es t i m ony i n t he or al r ul i ng on t he R ul e 50( a) m ot i on, he expr es sly as sum ed t hat V e a ls h a dn o t b e e n p r o p e r lyw a r n e d
. T h e a b s e n c e o f a w a r n in gw a s th e o n ly i s s ue i n di s put e . There si m pl y w as no e vi de nc e a s t o w hy Veal s fe l la nd t h eref ore nothi n g on w h i ch j u rors coul d rel y i n assi gn i n g fau l tt o t h e personn el bask etoperator
. Absen tev i den ce that a proper w arn i n g coul d h ave p revented t h e i nj u ry V eal s s u f

fered, he fai l ed t o m ak e out a pri m a faci e case f or negl i gen ce. Veal s a l s o s o ugh t r e l i e f pur s uant t o Se c t i o n 90 5(b) o f t he Lo ngs ho r e a nd H a rb or W ork ers’C om p en sa ti on A ct. 33 U
. S

. C

. § 90 5 (b). T h e on l y re feren ce to t h e st atute i s i n a j u ri sdi ct i on alst atem en tat t h e begi n n i n g of V eal s’ s bri ef

. N ot h a v in g m a d e a n y a r g u m e n t re g a r d in g th e A c t, V e a ls a b a n d o n e dth e is s u e . S ee Y oh ey v. Col l i n s, 9 8 5 F .2d 2 2 2 , 2 2 4 -2 5 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 3 ). N o re a s o n a b le ju r o rco u ldfin dth a tV e a ls p r o v e daca u s a l re la tio n s h ip b e t we e n h i s i nj u r i e s a n dt h e d e fe n d a n t s ’a l l e g e dc o n d u c t
. W e AF FI RM
.