Ret i r ed Ju st i ce D on W i t t i g as s i gned t o t hi s C our t by t he Chi efJust i ce of t he Supr em e Cour t of 1 T ex as pu rsu an t t o T E X

. G O V ’ T C O D E A N N

. § 7 4.00 3 (V ern on S up p. 20 04 ). 

### NUM BER 13-08- 0000 9-CV 

## C OU RT O F A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS COR PUS CHR I ST I - 

## EDI NBURG

REY NA LD O GON ZA LE Z, A pp ellan t,
v . GREAT LA KES DREDGE & DOC K COMPA NY, A pp ellee.

On a p p ea l f ro m th e 20 6t h D is tr ic t C o u rt of H ida lgo C ou nty , T exas . 

### MEM ORA NDU M OPI NI ON B efo re C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld ez a n d J u st ic es Y añ ez a n d W it ti g 1 

### M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e D o n W it ti g Appel lan t, Rey nal do Gonz ale z , tr ied his Jones Act and other mari ti me cl aims to a jur y . See 46 U.S.C. § 6 88. T he jury foun d ap pellee , Great L akes Dredge & Dock Com pan y , 25 perce nt negligent and foun d app ellant7 5 perce nt negligent. Th e trial court2

acc ordin g ly

reduce d the damag e findi ng of $500,00 0 to $125,0 00. Appel lan t as ser ts the trial court erred by not prop erly app ly ing “ the rule” ( T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 267 ) to a critical defense
w it ness and that the e v ide nce of contr ibu tor y neg li g ence w as not l eg all y su ff ic ien t. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 2 67

. W e affi r m. I. T he Ru le At the c oncl usion o f

a p p e llant’s ca se, hi s c ounse l, for t he first ti me, i nv oked the
ru le. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 267; T EX
. R. E V ID . 613

. After the d efense w it ness , Lanny Law re nce, tes ti fied on directex am i n a t i o n , app ell ant’ s c ounse l beg an hi s c ro ss ex aminat ion and el ic it ed te sti mony

by Law re nce ind ic ati ng tha t h e had some d is cus si ons about pr ior
cour t t est imony

w it h defense couns el and the cor porate re present ati v e, Enr iq ue El iz ondo. Appel lan t req uest ed, a nd w as afforded, a hear ing outs ide the presenc e of the j ur y . Dur ing the hea ring, Lawre n c e , E liz ond o, an d de fense coun sel w ere question ed b y app ellant ’s
couns el and t he c our

t c oncer nin g the apparent v iol ati on of the ru le. A . St and ard o f Rev iew W e rev iew

the tr ial co urt’ s a cti ons in enforc ing t h e r ule by an a buse of dis creti on sta ndard. D r

i le x S y s . v . F lo re s , 1 S

. W

. 3d 1 12, 117 -18 (Te x . 199 9). W hen the rule is
v iol ated, the tr ial co urt m a y, taking i nto c onsi derati on al l of the c ircums tanc es, al low the tes ti mony

of the p otent ial w it ness , ex cl ude the testi mony , or h old the v iol ator i n c ontempt. Id. (cit in g T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 267( e) ; Tr iton Oi l & Ga s C or

p. v . E. W . Mor an D ri ll ing C o. , 509 S.W .2d 678 , 684 (Tex. Civ . App .–Fo rt W orth 19 74, w rit ref 'd n.r.e .)). B. A nal ysis Appel lan t arg ues that both defense c ounse l’ s d is cus si on w it h Law re nce and counsel ’s failu re to w ar n El iz ondo t hat t he r ule had been i nv oked, v iol ated the r ule

.3

Cou nsel are obl ig ated to ensure compl ian ce w it h the r ule

. See D ri lex , 1 S. W . 3d at 12 0. W hile the record ref lects som e con v ersatio ns be tw e e n L a w rence , and Eliz ond o, th ese occ ur re d i n par

t before the r ule w as inv oked. El iz ondo d id not re cal l dis cus si ng any specif ic testimo ny. “I don’t rem em ber talking specif ic abou t testim onie s [sic] and stu f f like that. ” Thoug h the record suppo rt s appel lan t’ s cont enti on that defense c ounse l, i ncl udi ng all four a tt o rn ey s, did not proper ly admoni sh El iz ondo, appel lan t doe s n ot po intto any spec ificrev ela ti on by

El iz ondo t hat a ff ect ed hi s c ase. App ellantnext arg ues th at La w rence mat erially altered his testim ony in three w ays. Lawrence w as ap p e ll e e ’s v ice preside nt for risk ma nagem entand special proje cts. Altho ugh notan eyew itness, Lawrence spoke w ith ap pellan t af ter his fall d own a shipboa rd sta ir w ell

. Acc ordin g to appel lan t’ s a rg ument, in hi s d eposi ti on Law re nce tes ti fied th at he did n o t b e lie ve the p ain t on the l adder w as non- sk id pai nt. At tr ial , he w as “c ertai n” the pain t w as no n-skid. How ever, the record reveals a mo re am biguous depo sition an sw er: “I don’ t k now

i f the pai nt has non-s ki d in it or not,” and ind ic ated that he di d notex pectthe pai nt t o hav e non- sk id in it

. Law re nce ex pla ine d that pr ior to tr ial he act ual ly touc hed t he pain ted surface a nd felt the non -skid mat erial. Next, appel lan t c harg es Law re nce w it h al ter ing hi s t est imony co ncer nin g the pr esenc e of di amond pl ati ng on t he s tai rw ay . Appel lan t c ontends that , athi s d eposi ti on, Lawrence test if ied th at th e diam ond platin g w as w orn away . At trial, howev er, Lawrence sai d the pla ti ng w as int act

. In his depos it ion , Law re nce sta ted: “ It— loo ks l ik e the hi g h s pots
ar e w or n off

of the d iamond —th e di amond—. ” At the ti me of t his tes ti mony , Law re nce w as re ferr ing to a phot og ra ph of the sta irs a nd notthe act ual st airs. At tr ial , Law re nce deni ed that th e diamond pl ate w as “w or n off” or had los t i ts eff ect iv eness . He did ag re e w it h
co u n se l that if the top s har p edg e of the pla ti ng w ere remov ed, i t i s n ot as effect iv e atT he o ff i ci al t r anscr i pt used t he t er m “ m i ss st eppi ng, ” i l l ust r at i ng t he p r obl em wi t h sem ant i cs. 2 4 pr ev enti ng sl ips

. Appel lan t doe s n ot infor m us how the semant icdi ff erences i n pl ay w ere c aused by any al leg ed v io lat ion of ru le 267. Appel lan t’ s c ounse l als o not ed th at he di d notneed Law re nce’ s t est imony

on t his su bje ct noti ng “ y ou c an s ee i t r ig ht t here i n the pi ctu re . . . .” T hird, ap pellan t charges tha t Lawrence altere d his testim ony regarding app ellant ’s “f a ll , ” f ro m “slipping,” in his depo sition, to “mis-stepp ing” in his trial testim ony. In his 2 depos it ion Law re nce w as ask ed: Q. Okay. N ow w hat ’s the f ir s tt h in g yo u r e m em ber he aring abou t Mr. G o n za le z’s in ju ry? A. H i m j us t s ay i ng t ha t he h ad h ur t hi s a r m. Q. Oka y . And i n w hat fashi on? A. By slipping down stairs. At t ri al, Law re nce w as q uest ion ed abou t s ome di sc uss ion s w it h one of the at tor ney s for the def ense , tha t app ellant ’s counse l “fou nd very , v eryinterestin g. I tho ught y ou told this jury tha t Rey nald o told y ou th at he miss step ped [sic] . Did y ou te stif y to tha t?” Lawrence replied , “I did.” App ellant ’s trial coun sel poin ted out th at La w rence ’s ow n ha nd-wr itten report from the day

of the a cc ide nt i ndi cat ed that Gonz ale z ’s “[f]oot s li pped w hil e s teppi ng dow n.” Finally , app ellantf u rther po ints ou t tha t Lawrence test if ied th at, d uring his conversation s w ith oth er w itnesse s, he lea rned of specif ic testimo ny Gon z alez g ave at trial. How ev er , w it h one ex ception , Law re nce deni ed l ear nin g any i nformati on th at he di d not hav e before

. The onl y

new i nformati on admit tedl y g lea ned w as Gonz ale z ’s tes ti mony that
a co -wo rk e r h a d sh o wn u p d ru n k

. Ap p e ll a n tco n c lu d e s t h a twit h o u tL a wre n c e ’s t e s t im o n y, there w oul d have b e e n n o di sput e tha t app ell ant s li pped on a ne g li g entl y mai ntai ned5

sta ir w ell and w as inj ur ed as a resul t. In supp ort of

his arg um ent , app ellantcites Harris , a criminal case

. Har ri s v . St ate , 122 S. W .3d 8 71, 882- 83 (Tex . App.–F ort W orth 20 03, p et. re f’d)

. Harris ex pla ins a tw o- ste p anal y si s t o as cer

tai n w hether

a t ri al cour

t has abus ed i ts dis creti on i n all ow ing testi mony by
a wit ness w ho has v iol ated the r ule

. Id. T h e fi rs ts t e p o f t h e a n a l y s i s i s t o d eter mine
w hether the w it ness w as (1 ) a person w ho w as not i ntended to be c all ed to tes ti fy and w ho
w as no t conn ecte d to th e case -in-chief , buthas be com e a ne cessary w itness; o r (2) a person w ho had been sw or n or li ste d as a w it ness in the cas e and eit her heard or di sc uss ed another's tes ti mony . Id. I f the w it ness had “p ersonal kn ow led g e of the off ense and w as cl ear ly anti ci pated as a w itn e ss ,” t h e s econd st ep of the anal y si s req uires the c our t t o deter mine w hether

the w it ness ac tuall y co nferred w it h or heard the tes ti mony

of another
w it ness , and w hether

the w it ness 's tes ti mony co ntradi cte d the tes ti mony of a w it ness he act ual ly heard from t he oppo si ng si de, or cor ro borated the tes ti mony of another

w it ness he act ual ly heard from t he s ame si de on a ques ti on of f actbeari ng upon the is sue of g uil t or inn ocenc e. Id. If both of t he abov e cr it er ia are met, then the t ri al cour t abu sed it s d is creti on by al low ing the tes ti mony of the w it ness . Id. Appel lan t c or re ctl y poi nts out that: “[ t]he premis e under ly ing the ru le is thatthe tr uth is more l ik ely to be re ached by present ing the Jur y each w it ness [’ s] unal loy ed, i ndependen t
ve rsion of

an occu rrence un colored byprevi ous te stimo ny in the trial.” See Franklin v. State , 733 S.W .2d 5 37, 5 40 ( Tex . Ap p.–Ty ler 1985, pet. ref’d)

. Franklin go e s o n t o sa y: “Ev en the most r ighteou s truth teller ma y be uncon sciously inf luen ced. And to allow ea ch
suc ceedi ng w it ness to har moniz e hi s s tor y w it h tho se w ho precede hi m w oul d under mine the t estof cross -e x aminat ion .” As ide from ag ain bei ng a c ri minal ca se, Franklin is6

dis ti ng uis habl e on the fact s b ecaus e i n tha t c ase the tw o defense ali bi w it ness es ex cl uded had bee n i n the cour

troom and act ual ly heard the off ic er ’s cr it ic al tes ti mony co ncer nin g both the i denti ficat ion of appel lan t and the ti me per iod w it hin w hic h the offenses had oc cur re d. Id. at 538. The al ibi w it ness es coul d the n tai lor thei r ow n tes ti mony

kno wing th e cr it ic al
ev ide nce. Appel lan t arg ues that Law re nce tai lored hi s t est imony to re spond to Gonz ale z ’s and He rvey Ma rt in e z’s e ye witn e ss te st im o n y. He cit e s se vera l ca se s, in clu d in g Elba r, Inc. v. Cl auss en , 774 S.W .2 d 4 5 , 51 (Tex . Ap p.–D all as 1989, w ri t di s’ m), w hic h prov ide s t hat, “[ r] ule 614 of the Tex as Rul es of C iv il Ev ide nce, commonl y re ferred to as ‘t he r ule ,’ prov ide s for th e ex cl usi on of w it ness es from the cour troom s o t h a t th ey

ca nnot hear

and be inf luen ced b y

the te stimo ny of

othe r w itnesse s.” Id. “Sequestra tion min imizes w itnesse s' tai lor ing thei r tes ti mony i n respon se to t hat o f other w it ness es and prev ents col lus ion among
w itnesse s testif

y ing fo r the sam e side. ” Drilex Sys ., 1 S. W .3d a t 116

. Dr ilex also obse rv es: “A v iol ati on of the Rul e oc curs w hen a nonex empt prospecti v e wit n e ss r e m ain s i n the
c o u rt ro o m d u ri n g t h e t e s t im o n y o f a n o t h e r wi t n e s s , o r wh e n a n o n e xe m p tp ro s p e c t ive
w it ness l ear ns about another's tr ial tes ti mony throug h di sc uss ion s w it h persons othe r than t h e atto rneys i n the case or by read ing repo rts or comm ent s abo ut th e test imo ny.” Id. at 117. Appel lan t concl udes thatLaw re nce’ s acti ons direct ly vi ola ted the rul e and there i s n o q uest ion thatGonz ale z ’s tes ti mony i nfluenc ed Law re nce. H ow ev er , app ell ant fai ls to show
w hether or not Gonz ale z ’s tr ial tes ti mony differed from his depos it ion tes ti mony , w hic h w as know n t o L a wrence. Appel lan t doe s n ot po intto a s ing le mater ial tr ial st atement by Gonz ale zor

M arti nezthatw as somehow made k now n to Law re nce, w ho i n tur n c hang edT h e re i s n o i n d i c a ti o n th a t R i e h l ’ s i n to x i c a ti o n , vel non , p la ye d a n y p a r t in a p p e lla n t’s f a ll. 3 7 his testi mony

based upon that testi mony . The rec ord rev eal s t hat t he onl y new i nformati on Law re nce lea rn ed w as from defense co- couns el, w ho pi ck ed up Law re nce at t he ai rp ort and dis cus sed the c ase w it h the w it ness before the r ule w a s i nv oked. The ne w i nformati on conce rned the into x icated state of co-w orker Tim Riehl. 3 In respon se to app ell ant’ s c ontent ion s, appel lee first notes thatappel lan t w aiv ed any
a lle ged err o r by p ro ce e d in g afte r th e c o u rt ’s h e a rin g on th e m a tt e r with o u t f irs t o b ta in in g a ru li ng . After the h ear ing , app ell ant’ s t ri al couns el did not re new hi s o bje cti on and sta ted h e
w as re ady

to proceed

. The most li kel y i nferenc e w oul d be that appe ll ant’ s c ounse l w as satisf ie d t hatno significa nt rule inf raction had occurred. To pre serv e error, a party must
sec ur e a r uli ng , ex pli ci t or i mpli ci t, or

i f the c our

t refuses to r ule , obj ectto the re fusal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33.1( a) (1 )( A) , ( B) (2 )( A) , & (B ). W h ile appell ee’ s c hal len g e i s n ot w it hout meri t, w e w il l nev erthel ess address the meri ts of the i ss ue. Appel lee arg ues that under the sta ndard of

rev iew , abuse of dis creti on, no abuse has been s how n. Appel lee ci tes a nu mber of case s w here the tr ial c o u rt ’s dec is ion to eit her
ex cl ude or

al low a w it ness to tes ti fy w as uphel d. One c ase, Bishop , demons trated
re v ersi ble er ro r for th e ex cl usi on of a w it ness under the ru le. Bi

shop v. W

oll yung , 705 S

. W

. 2 d 3 1 2 , 3 1 4 ( Te x . A p p . – S a n A n t o n i o 1 9 8 6 , w r i tre f’ d , n . r . e . ) ( h o l d i n g t h a tB i s h o p ' s w i fe shou ld notb e excluded f rom th e proce edin gs on retrial be cause she w as a pa rty in interest). More in point than thi s p ro posi ti on of l aw i s o ur hol din g i n W

eeks

. See W

eeks v. Heinrich , 447 S. W .2d 6 88, 6 97 ( Tex . C iv . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 1969, w ri t re f ’d n.r .e.)

. There, appel lan ts show ed th at tw o w it ness es tes ti fied th ey met w it h appel lee and his counsel and the lat ter tal ked to them about thei r tes ti mony . Id. The r ule had been i nv oked, but nei ther8

o f th e witn e ss e s ha d b e e n swor n o r h e a rd a n y o f th e te st im o n y a t th e tim e of th e m e e ti n g. Id. Ap pel lan ts w ere al low ed to q uest ion the tw o w it ness es and to dev elo p the ci rc umstan ces surro u n d in g the meeti ng , bot h on bil l of ex cept ion , and thereafter in the pr esenc e of the jur

y . Id. The tri al jud g e had the d is creti onar y auth or ity

to per mit the tes ti mony

or to ex cl ude i t. Id. The W eeksappel lan ts did no t d e m o nst ra te ab use of dis creti on i n admi tti ng or refusing to str ik e the tes ti mony . Id. ( cit in g T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 267; Sw

. Bell Tel. C o. v

. Johnso n , 389 S.W .2d 6 45, 6 48 ( Tex . 196 5) ; In s . C o. of N

. Am . v. Par ker , 434 S.W .2d 1 59, 1 61 ( Tex . C iv . Ap p.–Ty ler 1968, no w ri t) ). App ellee a ptly poin ts outt hatt he trial co urt w entt o consid erab le lengths to asce rtain wh e t h e r t h e le t t e r a n d sp ir ito f ru le 2 6 7 h a d b e e n a d h e re d t o . Sh e co n d u c t e d a n e xt e n s ive hea ring outof

the pre sence of

the j u ry. She aske d a nu mb er of q uest ions to coun sel, Eliz ond o , a n d La w rence . It w as the trial j udge, n ot ap pellan t’s coun sel, w hose inquiry broug ht ou t t he fact that Law re nce apparentl y had not h eard befo re the tr ial thatR ieh l showed up for w ork intoxicated. How ever, as w e no ted abo v e, th is occurred be fore the rule
w as invoked. App ellant ’s counse l w as af forde d a m p le o ppo rtunity to q uest ion all
conc er ned, and s eemed to ac q uie sc e to the fur ther tr ial tes ti mony

of Law re nce. The tr ial j udg e w as faced w it h the sa me q uest ion w e face to d a y. W h e n c ounse l chan ges a q uest ion f rom “W hat ’s the f irst thing y ou h eard ?” to “Did y ou te stif y to tha t?” is
a w itness ex pect ed to answer i n the ex act sam e langua ge? Is there a signif icant d if feren ce betw een a mis -s tep a nd a sl ip, or as appell ant’ s couns el q uest ion ed Go nz ale z , abo ut t he “fal l dow n the sta irs?” At one poi nt Gonz ale z tes ti fied: “I onl y sl ipp ed and I don’ t know how thi ng s h appened becau se it w as a matter of s econd s.” There w ere v ar iat ion s in tes ti mony by bot h Gon z alez and La w rence . At leastone app ellate criminal opin ion he ld tha t w e mu stA c l a s s i c a l v i o l a ti o n o f l o g i c o c c u rs w h e n it is a rg u e d th a t b e c a u s e a e v e n t fo l l o w s a n o th e r e v e n t, 4 th a t t h e fi rs t c a u s e d th e s e c o n d

. “ Propt erea q uod er go p ropt er

quo d .” 9 pr esume that the c our

t has proper ly

ex er ci sed its d iscret ion unti l the c ontrar y i s s how n. Ti jer ina v. Sta te , 460 S.W .2d 123 , 124 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 70). In ad dit ion to the prob lem of semant ic s, sev eral difficul ti es face appel lan t’ s a ttempt to s how an abuse of di sc re ti on. Law re nce had notbeen prev iou sl y sw or n as a w it ness or adm onish ed b y

t he trial co urt. W e do f ind fault in app ellee’s cou nsel’s failure to a dm onish the w it ness as i nst ru cte d by the cour

t. Law re nce w as already famil iar w it h the pr ior testim ony of

Gonzalez, and oth ers, w hose d e p o s it io ns w ere previously taken . Lawrence
w as, after all, a com pan y vice-presiden t and risk ma nager. Unless Gon z alez changed his pr ior depos it ion tes ti mony

at tr ial , w hich i s n o t c ontende d, t hen Law re nce w as already fam iliar w ith app ellant ’s co nte ntion s. L awrence had rev isited th e scen e of the fall and could hav e refresh ed hi s recol lecti on of the par ti cul ars, suc h as the presenc e of non- sk id pai nt. Law re nce spok e w it h c ounse l, w hic h i s p er mis si ble , and l ear ned of the onl y new factor , t he int ox ic ati on of

R ie h l, b e f or e the r ule w as inv oked. Law re nce w as not i n the co urtroom dur ing the pr ior tes ti mony . Mo re ov er , ev en i f Law re nce chang ed hi s t est imony , i t doe s n ot
neces sarily f o llo w

thatthe chang e w as due t o a r ule v iol ati on. Al l factors t hat a ppel lan t 4
arg ues to sug g esthe chang ed his tes ti mony w ere pres ented to the jur y , w ho w ere c harg ed to w eig h Law re nce’ s c re dib il ity . The r ecord does not other w is e di sti ng uis h betw een w hat L a wre n c e k n e w p ri o r t o h is c o n ve rs a t io n wi t h E li zo n d o , a n d wh a t , i f a n yt h in g, h e m a y h a ve learne d f rom Elizondo . Nor does the record clearlydif feren tiate bet w een w hatLawrence mayhav e di sc uss ed before the rul e w as inv oked and w hat may hav e been dis cus sed after the ru le w as inv oked. And final ly , as appel lee poi nts out, the tr ial jud g e c onsc ien ti ousl y and pain stakingly

add ressed the situa tion p resen ted to her.T h i s “s l i g h t d u ty ” c o n c e p t w a s h e i g h te n e d i n l a te r c a s e s . See e. g. , G autreaux v. Scur l ock Mar

ine , 5 107 F. 3d 3 31, 339 ( 5t h Ci r . 199 7) ( di scussed infr a ). 10 The tr ial co urt, in the e x er ci se of judi ci al dis cre ti o n , must det er mine w hether the
w it ness 's testi mony

w il l be recei v ed. Johns on , 389 S.W .2d at 648 ( hold ing that the mere fact or ci rc umstan ce that a tr ial jud g e may deci de a matt er w it hin hi s d is creti onar

y auth or ity in a mann e r d if

ferent from w hat a n appel lat e j udg e w oul d dec ide i f plac ed i n a s imi lar
c i r c u m s t a n c e d o e s n o td e m o n s t r a t e t h a ta n a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n h a s o c c u r r e d )

. W e conc lud e tha t app ell ant h as not d emonst ra ted t hat t he tr ial j udg e abus ed her di sc re ti on. See Dri lex Sys

. , 1 S

. W

. 3 d a t1 1 7 (s t a t in g t h a twh e n t h e r u le i s vi o la t e d , t h e t ri a l c o u rtm a y, tak ing i nto c onsi derati on al l of the c ircums tanc es, al low the tes ti mony

of the p otent ial
w itness, ex clude the te stimo ny, or hold the v iolato r in cont em pt). W e overrule appe llant’s firs t i ss ue. II. L egal Su ff icien cy In hi s s econd i ss ue, a ppel la n t a rgu es the e v ide nce is i nsuffici ent t o s uppor t t he cont ri butor

y neg li g ence findi ng of the jur y . He arg ues that a s eaman’ s c onduc t i s n eg li g ent
o n ly wh e n t h e re is a sa fe r a lt e r n a t ive a va il a b le wh ic h t h e se a m a n kn o ws, o r s h o u ld h a ve kn o wn, a n d n e vert h e le ss p ro ce e d e d with th e un sa fe ch o ice , c it in g Ship m an v. Centra l Gulf Line s, Inc. , 709 F. 2d 383, 386 (5 th Ci r. 1983)

. Mo re ac curatel y , Shi pm an hol ds that in order to sup port a jury f inding of contribu tory negligence, th e sea ma n mu st have had a duty to act
or refrai n from acti ng . Id. W hil e a s eaman's duty to protec t hi msel f is sl ig ht, the d uty does
ex is t. Id. A seaman w oul d not be c ontr ibu tor il y neg li g ent merely

bec ause he us ed an 5 unsafe to ol or

appl ian ce or p ro ce eded i n an unsafe area of the shi p. Id. “ W here it is show n, ho w ev er , t hat t here ex is ted a safe alt er nati v e av ail abl e to him, of w hic h he knew or11

shoul d hav e k now n, a seaman' s c hoi ce of an uns afe course of action c a n p ro p e rl y be consid ered in dete rmining w het her he w as ne gli gent.” Id. Ap pe l l an t al s o argues f ro m Gautr eaux v. Scur

lock M ar ine , 107 F .3d 3 31, 3 39 ( 5th Ci r. 1997)

. Gau treaux is i n a c c u ra t e ly c it e d fo r t h e p ro p o s it io n t h a ta se a m a n d o e s n o th a ve a dut y to find th e s afest w ay

to per form hi s w or k. M ore ac curatel y , t he case hol ds that a se a man i s o bli g ated under the Jones Ac t t o ac t w it h ordin ar y pr udenc e under

the ci rc umstan ces . Id. T he circum stan ces of

a se am an's em ploymen t include n ot only his reliance o n h is e m p lo ye r t o p ro vid e a sa fe wo rke n vir o n m e n tb u ta ls o h is o wn ex per ien ce, train ing , or e ducat ion . The reason abl e person sta ndard, the refore, an d a Jon es Act ne gli gence act ion be com es on e of the rea sona ble seam an in like circumst ance s. To hold ot herwi se w ould unjust ly rew ard unre ason able cond uct an d w ould fault se am en o nly for their gross ne gli gence, which w as no t the conte mp lation of Congress.
Id. (citations om itted ). A . St and ard o f Rev iew For the Jon es Act, b oth the bu rden of proof a nd th e stan dard of

app ellate rev iew

is les s s tr ing ent t han und er the common l aw . Maritim e Oversea s Corp. v. Ellis , 971 S. W .2d 4 0 2 , 4 0 6 (T e x. 19 9 8 ) (ci ti n g Texa s & Pa c. Ry . v . R ober ts , 4 8 1 S

. W

. 2 d 7 9 8 , 8 0 0 (T e x. 197 2)). As w ith the law on cau sation , the FELA sta nda rd of app el la t e r e vie w applies in Jones Ac t c ases . Id. The purpo se of the Jon es Act standa rd of rev iew is to v est th e jury
w i t h c o mp l e t e d i s c r e t i o n o n fa c t u a l i s s u e s a b o u t l i a b i l it y . Id. On ce the app ellate court deter mines thatso me ev ide nce about w hic h reason abl e mi nds coul d di ff er su ppor ts the
v erdic t, the a ppel lat e c our t' s rev iew

i s c omplet e. Id. Essent ially , a T exas court of app eals maynot condu ct a tradi ti onal factual su ff ic ien cy rev iew of a j ur y 's l iab il ity

findi ng under

the Tex as “w eig ht an d preponderance” st andard; rather w e mustappl y

the les s s tr ing e nt federal12

sta ndard of rev iew

. Id. B. A nal ysis Appel lan t arg ues that the o nly w it ness to the acc ide nt, Ma rt ine z , di d noti ndi cat e any cont ributo ry

neglig ence on ap pellan t’s part. Martinez he a rd n o critici sm of app ellant ’s negotia ti on o f t he s ta i r w el l

. A pp el l an t fur

th er a rg ue s t ha t ha d th e tr i al c ou rt prop erly excluded L awrence ’s testimo ny, no evi den ce w ould supp ort the adverse jury f inding. “A findi ng of cont ri butor

y neg li g ence w it hout Law re nce’ s t est imony i s ‘ mere conjec ture and spec ula ti on.’ ” H ow ev er , w e hav e a lre a d y h eld the tr ial co urt di d notabus e her di sc re ti on b y a d m it t in g L a wre n c e ’s t e s t im o n y. App ellantw o rk e d o n the vessel in q uest ion f rom 1 998 to 200 5. He w as intim ate ly fam iliar w ith his w orkplace a nd had t rav ersed t he stairw ell in que stion hun dred s o f times. If inde ed th e pai nt on the st airs l ack ed non- sk id mater ial , as a w atc h eng ine er appel lan t had author ity , w hen t he s hip w as under w ay , t o add re ss a n d repai r the u nsafe c ondi ti on. App ellanth imse lf

was u nsure h ow the a cciden t hap pen ed, altho ugh he te stif ied th e stairs
w er e c lea n and dr

y and, if there w as any w ater present , he broug ht it in on his shoes

. The
v ess el w as not o n the hi g h s eas or under w ay w hen t he acci dent occ ur re d. The v ess el w as sta ti onar y and the seas calm. Appell ant test ified that there w as an al ter nate ro ute a v ail abl e, had t he need ari sen. W hil e appell ant test ified that he sl ipp ed, he tol d a p hy si ci an th at he “lo st his foot ing.” In La w rence ’s testimo ny, appe llant w as quote d as saying he “m iss ste pped [ si c]. ” Appe ll ant’ s o w n l awy er des cr ibe d the i nci dent as a “ fall. ” Addi ti onal ly , t he jur y w as furni shed w it h a p hoto of t he s tai rw ell , and as appel lan t’ s t ri al couns el poi nted out, the j ur y co u ld s e e f o r th emsel v es the c ondi ti on of the sta ir w ell

. Fi nal ly , t he v ess el w as subje ct to regular Coast Gua rd inspect ion an d the y had not no ted mat erial def ects.13 C. Conclusion App ellate inquiry

is l imite d to whethe r there w as an y e v iden ce to supp ort the jury 's
v erdic t, ir re sp e ct ive of

i ts suffici ency , or

w hether pl ain er ro r w as commi tted w hic h, i f not noti ced, w oul d resu ltin a "manifestmis car ri ag e of ju sti ce. " Shi pm an, 709 F.2d at385 . No plain e rror i s argued or app aren t. W e f ind th a tt here is some evidence of contribu tory neg li g ence about w hic h reas onabl e mi nds coul d di ff er . See Ma riti m e Ove rs eas Cor

p., 971 S.W .2d a t 406

. W e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s s econd i ss ue. The jud g ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med.

DO N W ITTIG, J u s t i c e Del iv er ed and filed the 2 4th d ay

of June, 2010.