PIPE ON THE PIPE RACK
FLOOR, THEREBY GIVING RISE TO FALCON DRILLING'S LIABILITY. BUT THERE IS ALSO
EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT CRAWFORD WAS HIMSELF NEGLIGENT.
THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDINGS OF FACT INCLUDE A FINDING THAT "IT WAS NOT
UNREASONABLE FOR GREG CRAWFORD TO EXPECT THAT THE DRILL PIPE HE WAS ATTEMPTING TO
HANDLE WOULD FALL TO THE LEFT AS THE PREVIOUS STANDS OF PIPE HAD RATHER THAN TO THE
RIGHT AS IT DID." THIS CONCLUSION IS SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD THAT
DRILL CREWS WHO WERE EXPERIENCED AT WORKING TOGETHER, AS THIS CREW WAS, DEVELOP A
"RHYTHM" WHICH MIGHT LULL CRAWFORD INTO ASSUMING THAT EACH STAND OF PIPE WOULD FALL
IN THE SAME DIRECTION AS THE PREVIOUS STANDS HAD FALLEN. UNDER THE STANDARD OF
"SLIGHT" NEGLIGENCE APPLIED BY THE DISTRICT COURT, THIS FINDING ALONE MIGHT SUPPORT
A CONCLUSION THAT CRAWFORD WAS NOT CONTRIBUTORILY NEGLIGENT. BUT HAD A STANDARD
OF ORDINARY PRUDENCE STANDARD BEEN APPLIED, OTHER EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD MIGHT HAVE
LED THE DISTRICT COURT TO A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION. SPECIFICALLY, CRAWFORD HIMSELF,
WITNESSES FROM THE DRILL CREW, AND BOTH EXPERT WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED ABOUT THE
OPERATIONS ON DRILLING RIGS ALL TESTIFIED THAT A DERRICKMAN MUST ALWAYS BE PREPARED
FOR THE STAND OF PIPE TO FALL IN EITHER DIRECTION. THUS, EVEN THOUGH IT MIGHT NOT
HAVE BEEN "UNREASONABLE" FOR CRAWFORD TO EXPECT THE STAND TO FALL TO THE LEFT, THE
ORDINARY PRUDENT SEAMAN MIGHT HAVE TAKEN SOME ADDITIONAL PRECAUTIONS TO PREVENT
INJURY TO HIMSELF.
THERE IS ALSO EVIDENCE THAT CRAWFORD MIGHT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ANTICIPATE THAT
THE STAND WOULD FALL TO THE RIGHT. ON CROSS-EXAMINATION, CRAWFORD ADMITTED THAT
HE COULD HAVE SEEN THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF THE PLACEMENT OF THE BOTTOM OF THE
STAND IF HE HAD LOOKED. THIS TESTIMONY WAS CORROBORATED BY SEVERAL OTHER WITNESSES
AT TRIAL.7 FURTHERMORE, A MEMBER OF THE DRILL CREW AND FALCON DRILLING'S EXPERT
WITNESS BOTH TESTIFIED THAT CRAWFORD SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN AN INDICATION OF WHICH WAY
THE PIPE WAS LEANING BY OBSERVING THE ELEVATORS. IN LIGHT OF CRAWFORD'S CONCESSION
THAT HE HAD TO BE READY FOR THE PIPE TO FALL IN EITHER DIRECTION, IF THE PROPER
STANDARD WERE APPLIED, THE DISTRICT COURT MIGHT CONCLUDE THAT CRAWFORD SHOULD HAVE
BEEN MORE AWARE OF THE THINGS HAPPENING AROUND HIM WHICH MIGHT HAVE HELPED HIM TO
JUDGE WHICH WAY THE STAND OF PIPE WOULD FALL.
AS FURTHER EVIDENCE OF CRAWFORD'S POTENTIALLY CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE, IT IS
NOTABLE THAT THE DISTRICT COURT ACKNOWLEDGED THAT A "MULE LINE" WAS AVAILABLE TO
ASSIST CRAWFORD IN RACKING THE TOP OF THE STAND OF PIPE.8 THE RECORD SUGGESTS THAT
CRAWFORD KNEW BEFORE IT CAME OUT OF THE HOLE THAT THE STAND WHICH INJURED HIM WAS
A PARTICULARLY HEAVY STAND. THE DISTRICT COURT SPECIFICALLY DETERMINED THAT "[T]HE
The possibility that Crawford could have looked down and seen how the stand of pipe was positioned is further corroborated by the testimony of several witnesses from the drill crew that the driller always stopped the process momentarily after the bottom of the stand was