racked, and also that Crawford had the ability to stop the process by refusing to unlatch the elevators, which also would have enabled him to look below him. The "mule line" is a device used by the drill crew to ease the task of setting pipe back in the derrick.
DERRICKMAN CAN STOP THE OPERATION AND REQUEST A MULE LINE IF HE DOES NOT THINK HE
COULD HANDLE A PARTICULAR STAND THAT IS TO BE REMOVED FROM THE HOLE." CRAWFORD'S
OWN EXPERT WITNESS CHARACTERIZED THE ATTEMPT TO MANUALLY HANDLE THE SEVEN-TO-EIGHT-
THOUSAND-POUND STAND OF PIPE AS AN UNSAFE PRACTICE. SO AGAIN, HAD THE COURT NOT
CHARACTERIZED CRAWFORD'S DUTY TO PROTECT HIMSELF AS A "SLIGHT" ONE, THE COURT MIGHT
HAVE DETERMINED CRAWFORD'S FAILURE TO REQUEST A MULE LINE TO BE CONTRIBUTORY
NEGLIGENCE WHICH WOULD HAVE REDUCED FALCON DRILLING'S LIABILITY FOR THE ACCIDENT.
FINALLY, THERE IS EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD THAT CRAWFORD'S OWN ACTIONS
UNNECESSARILY ENDANGERED HIMSELF. IN PARTICULAR, THERE WAS TESTIMONY AT TRIAL THAT
IN LIGHT OF A DERRICKMAN'S DUTY TO BE PREPARED FOR THE STAND TO FALL IN EITHER
DIRECTION, IT WAS UNSAFE FOR CRAWFORD TO HAVE POSITIONED HIS BODY IN RELIANCE ON
HIS ASSUMPTION THAT ALL OF THE STANDS WOULD FALL TO THE LEFT. ALSO, THERE WAS
TESTIMONY THAT INSTEAD OF RISKING INJURY BY TRYING TO COMPENSATE FOR HIS MISJUDGMENT
ABOUT THE DIRECTION IN WHICH THE PIPE WOULD FALL, CRAWFORD SHOULD HAVE SIMPLY LET
THE STAND FALL AGAINST THE DERRICK. WE, OF COURSE, CANNOT KNOW HOW THIS EVIDENCE
MIGHT HAVE AFFECTED THE DISTRICT COURT'S RESOLUTION OF THE CASE HAD THE PROPER
JONES ACT STANDARDS BEEN APPLIED.
THE DISTRICT COURT INCLUDED IN HIS FINDINGS OF FACT HIS ASSESSMENT THAT:
GREG CRAWFORD DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO HIS OWN INJURY IN ATTEMPTING TO CATCH THE DRILL PIPE WHEN IT WENT TO THE RIGHT RATHER THAN RELEASING THE PIPE AND LETTING IT FALL AGAINST THE DERRICK, IN FAILING TO SEE THAT THE DRILL PIPE HAD BEEN IMPROPERLY RACKED ON THE DRILL PIPE FLOOR BY THE FLOORHANDS BEFORE THE DRILLER SET THE DRILL PIPE, OR IN FAILING TO STOP THE TRIPPING OPERATION TO ASK FOR THE USE OF A MULE LINE ON THE STAND OF PIPE THAT THE CREW WAS HANDLING WHEN HE WAS INJURED.
HOWEVER, FROM THE STATE OF THE RECORD, IT IS NOT CLEAR THAT THE DISTRICT COURT WAS
MAKING A SPECIFIC FACTUAL FINDING THAT CRAWFORD'S SUCCESSFUL ATTEMPT TO RACK THE
PIPE, HIS FAILURE TO OBSERVE THE FAULTY PLACEMENT OF THE BOTTOM OF THE STAND IN THE
PIPE RACK, AND HIS FAILURE TO REQUEST A MULE LINE TO ASSIST THE MOVEMENT OF A
PARTICULARLY HEAVY STAND OF PIPE DID NOT "CONTRIBUTE" TO HIS INJURY. QUITE TO THE
CONTRARY, IT IS MUCH MORE LIKELY THAT THE ABOVE-QUOTED PASSAGE FROM THE DISTRICT
COURT'S OPINION REFLECTS THE COURT'S ASSESSMENT THAT DESPITE THE PRESENCE OF THE
ABOVE-LISTED FACTORS (WHICH APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN, AT THE VERY LEAST, CAUSES-IN-FACT
OF THE ACCIDENT), THESE FACTS DID NOT OR WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO A BREACH OF CRAWFORD'S
"SLIGHT" DUTY