IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-40784

Summary Calendar

LAVERN D. BONIN,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

RYAN MARINE SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:07-CV-00481

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

This appeal involves a suit brought by Lavern D. Bonin, under the

Jones Act and pursuant to general maritime law, against his employer, Ryan

Marine Services, Incorporated (“Ryan Marine”), for injuries that he sustained

to his left shoulder in the course of his employment. After a bench trial, the

district court found in favor of Bonin and awarded him damages. On appeal,

Ryan Marine challenges the district court’s findings of fact as to (1)

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 17, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 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.

Case: 10-40784 Document: 00511385514 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/17/2011
No. 10-40784

negligence; (2) causation; and (3) the appropriate damages for Bonin’s lost

wages. Because the district court did not clearly err as to these findings of

fact, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.

BACKGROUND

Bonin was working for Ryan Marine on April 6, 2007, on the M/V RMS

CITATION (“the vessel”) when his supervisor, Captain Bill Cox (“Captain

Cox”) ordered him and another deckhand, Brian Smith, to go to the anchor

platform in order to detach the vessel from a work platform on shore, to

1

which the vessel was attached. They were to do this by disconnecting and

retrieving the mooring line which connected a cable, called the anchor cable,

2

on the vessel, to a cable attached to the work platform.

Bonin claimed that he suffered a severe injury to his left shoulder while

attempting to retrieve the mooring line, impairing his ability to work. He

brought suit against Ryan Marine in district court. After conducting a bench

trial, the district court determined that Captain Cox was negligent in

ordering Bonin to retrieve the mooring line and thereby created an

unseaworthy vessel, which was the proximate cause of the injury to Bonin’s

shoulder. The court awarded Bonin $203,168 in damages.

On appeal, Ryan Marine contests the sufficiency of the evidence as to

(1) the district’s finding regarding Captain Cox’s negligence; (2) the district

court’s finding that Captain Cox’s negligence caused Bonin’s injury; and (3)

the damages awarded by the district court to Bonin. We address each

argument in turn.

The record indicates that the anchor platform was a platform on the back of the vessel 1

to house the anchor.

 The mooring line is also sometimes referred to in the record as the shock line. 2

2

Case: 10-40784 Document: 00511385514 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/17/2011
No. 10-40784

STANDARD OF REVIEW

“In a bench tried admiralty case, a district court’s findings concerning

negligence and causation are findings of fact reviewable by this court only for

clear error.” Johnson v. Cenac Towing, Inc., 544 F.3d 296, 303 (5th Cir.

2008). As damages awards are also findings of fact, we review such awards

for clear error. Nichols v. Petroleum Helicopters, Inc., 71 F.3d 119, 121 (5th

Cir. 1994). “A finding is clearly erroneous when the appellate court, viewing

the evidence in its entirety, ‘is left with the definite and firm conviction that a

mistake has been made.’” Bertucci Contracting Corp. v. M/V ANTWERPEN,

465 F.3d 254, 258-59 (quoting Walker v. Braus, 995 F.2d 77, 80 (5th Cir.

1993)). We may not reverse “[if] the district court’s finding is plausible in

light of the record as a whole,” even if this court “would have weighed the

evidence differently.” Id. at 258.

DISCUSSION

A.

The parties do not dispute that this case is governed by the Jones Act,

46 U.S.C. § 30104, which permits “an injured seaman to sue his employer for

personal injuries suffered as a result of the employer’s negligence.” Park v.

Stockstill Boat Rentals, Inc., 492 F.3d 600, 603 (5th Cir. 2007). In a Jones Act

case, the relevant standard of care is “ordinary prudence under the

circumstances.” Gautreaux v. Scurlock Marine, Inc., 107 F.3d 331, 338 (5th

Cir. 1997). The district court found that Captain Cox was negligent in

ordering Bonin to retrieve the mooring line, which was very heavy, under

dangerous conditions at sea, and with only one person to assist him. The

court also found that Captain Cox should instead have ordered Bonin to cut

the mooring line.

Here, Ryan Marine contends that there is no evidence or expert

testimony to support a finding that Captain Cox was negligent. Specifically,

3

Case: 10-40784 Document: 00511385514 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/17/2011
No. 10-40784

Ryan Marine argues that Bonin and the other deckhand, Smith, were the

only witnesses who testified that Captain Cox was negligent, and that they

did not have the requisite expertise required to testify as to whether Captain

Cox was negligent in ordering them to retrieve the mooring line. This

argument fails; Ryan Marine cites no authority in its brief supporting its

claim that expert testimony was required to establish that Captain Cox did

not exercise ordinary prudence under the circumstances. Moreover, Bonin

had 40 years of experience working on vessels, and Smith had 15 years of

such experience.

Ryan Marine also argues that even if Bonin and Smith were qualified to

testify as to whether Captain Cox was negligent, their testimony did not show

that Captain Cox was negligent. We disagree. The record contains evidence

that Captain Cox ordered the two other men to retrieve a heavy, waterlogged

mooring line under dangerous conditions. When the men attempted to

retrieve the mooring line, the seas were heavy, and visibility was poor

because it was late at night. Moreover, the mooring line itself was heavy and

water-logged, and the weather caused it to be pulled taut, making it difficult

to disconnect the line. The men also had no safety equipment or guard rails

where they were standing on the anchor platform. We discern no clear error,

because the district court’s finding that Captain Cox was negligent and

should have ordered the men to cut rather than retrieve the mooring line is

plausible in light of the record as a whole.

B.

Ryan Marine also contends that the evidence shows that Captain Cox’s

negligence, if any, did not cause Bonin’s injury. Ryan Marine argues that

Captain Cox ordered Bonin and Smith to disconnect the mooring line from

the cable connected to the work platform, whereas at one point in his

testimony, Bonin stated that he was injured when attempting to disconnect

4

Case: 10-40784 Document: 00511385514 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/17/2011
No. 10-40784

the mooring line from the anchor cable on the vessel. Ryan Marine further

contends that disconnecting the mooring line from the anchor cable was the

safest method for detaching the vessel from the work platform.

The district court found that Captain Cox’s negligence was in sending

Bonin and Smith out to retrieve the mooring line at all, rather than simply

ordering them to cut the mooring line, and that Bonin suffered the injury to

his shoulder while attempting to retrieve the line. There was testimony from

both Smith and Bonin to support the proposition that under the

circumstances, Captain Cox should have ordered the men to cut the mooring

line. There was also testimony that Bonin suffered the injury after being sent

by Captain Cox to the anchor platform to attempt to retrieve the mooring

line. We discern no clear error in the district court’s finding regarding

causation.

C.

Ryan Marine’s final argument is that the evidence does not support the

damages awarded to Bonin, because the evidence shows that Bonin was

disabled when he went to work for Ryan Marine, and so Bonin is not entitled

to past or future lost wages.

The district court found that Bonin suffered an injury to his left

shoulder while trying to retrieve the mooring line as ordered, and that any

pre-existing condition that he had was not acute or debilitating. These

findings are plausible in light of the record as a whole, which included

testimony from an orthopedic surgeon regarding Bonin’s medical condition

before and after the April 6, 2007 injury, and from an economist hired by

Bonin to testify regarding his economic losses. In addition, the district court’s

award of lost past and future wages was lower than what the economist

calculated. Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err in the lost wages

that it awarded to Bonin.

5

Case: 10-40784 Document: 00511385514 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/17/2011
No. 10-40784

CONCLUSION

We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in its findings as

to negligence, causation, or damages. Thus, we AFFIRM the district court’s

judgment and award of damages to Bonin.

6

Case: 10-40784 Document: 00511385514 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/17/2011