RACK. THE DRILLER THEN LOWERS THE STAND SO THAT THE
BOTTOM IS IN ITS PLACE IN THE RACK.
NEXT, THE DERRICKMAN DOES HIS JOB. THE DERRICKMAN IS POSITIONED ON A
MONKEYBOARD HIGH IN THE AIR ON THE DERRICK, SUCH THAT HE CAN REACH THE ELEVATORS
ATTACHED TO THE TOP OF THE STAND AS THE DRILL HANDS POSITION THE BOTTOM OF THE STAND
IN THE PIPE RACK. HE HAS A PULL-BACK ROPE WHICH HE FLIPS AROUND THE STAND, PULLING
THE TOP TOWARD HIM WITH HIS RIGHT HAND. WHEN THE BOTTOM OF THE STAND TOUCHES THE
FLOOR IN ITS POSITION IN THE PIPE RACK, THE DERRICKMAN REACHES UP AND UNLATCHES THE
ELEVATOR WITH HIS LEFT HAND. HE THEN PULLS THE TOP OF THE STAND WITH BOTH HANDS
SO THAT HE CAN PUT IT IN ITS PLACE IN THE PIPE RACK. THE ENTIRE PROCESS IS THEN
REPEATED UNTIL ALL OF THE PIPE HAS COME OUT OF THE HOLE.
THE STAND OF PIPE WHICH CAUSED CRAWFORD'S INJURY WEIGHED BETWEEN SEVEN AND
EIGHT THOUSAND POUNDS. THE SERIES OF STANDS TRIPPED OUT OF THE HOLE IMMEDIATELY
BEFORE THIS STAND HAD BEEN BOTH LIGHTER AND SHORTER. AS CRAWFORD RELEASED THE
ELEVATORS ON THE LIGHTER STANDS, EACH OF THEM FELL TOWARD HIS LEFT. CRAWFORD THUS
POSITIONED HIS BODY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE STANDS' MOMENTUM AND GUIDE THEM INTO
THE PIPE RACK.
CRAWFORD WAS INJURED WHEN A STAND OF PIPE FELL TO THE RIGHT WHEN HE EXPECTED
IT TO FALL TO THE LEFT. THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT THIS UNEXPECTED CHANGE
RESULTED FROM "THE FLOOR HANDS IMPROPERLY POSITIONING THE BOTTOM OF THE DRILL PIPE
ON THE PIPE RACK FLOOR AND THE DRILLER SETTING THE IMPROPERLY POSITIONED DRILL PIPE
DOWN ON THE PIPE RACK FLOOR." THE STAND'S FALL TO THE RIGHT CAUGHT CRAWFORD OFF-
GUARD, AND THE GRAVITY OF THE SITUATION WAS COMPOUNDED BY CRAWFORD'S ADVANCE
POSITIONING OF HIMSELF TO ACCOMMODATE A LEFTWARD-FALLING STAND. IN HIS ATTEMPT TO
PULL THE MASSIVE STAND OF PIPE INTO THE PIPE RACK, CRAWFORD SERIOUSLY INJURED HIS
BACK.
CRAWFORD SUED FALCON DRILLING FOR DAMAGES. THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND FALCON
DRILLING LIABLE FOR CRAWFORD'S INJURIES. IT ALSO FOUND THAT CRAWFORD WAS NOT
CONTRIBUTORILY NEGLIGENT WITH RESPECT TO THE ACCIDENT. JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED IN
CRAWFORD'S FAVOR IN THE AMOUNT OF $563,190.91. FALCON DRILLING APPEALS.
II.
OUR COURT'S EN BANC DECISION IN GAUTREAUX HAD NOT BEEN ANNOUNCED AT THE TIME
OF THE BENCH TRIAL IN THIS CASE. NATURALLY, THERE WAS NO OBJECTION TO THE DISTRICT
COURT'S CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING THE STANDARDS OF NEGLIGENCE TO BE APPLIED TO
THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES.
IT IS A FAMILIAR RULE THAT "[O]RDINARILY A PARTY MAY NOT PRESENT A WHOLLY NEW
ISSUE IN A REVIEWING COURT." 9A CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2588, at 599 (2d ed. 1995); see also Helvering
v. Wood, 309 U.S. 344, 349 (1940); United States v. Calverley, 37
F.3d 160, 162 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc), cert. denied, 513 U.S.
1196 (1995). It is equally well established, however, that an