Case Name: Nita PLAISANCE and Norman Plaisance, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ROMANDA SUE, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1988-12-15
Citations: 861 F.2d 858
Docket Number: No. 88-3184
Parties: Nita PLAISANCE and Norman Plaisance, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ROMANDA SUE, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before GEE, WILLIAMS and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 861
Pages: 858–858

Head Matter:
Nita PLAISANCE and Norman Plaisance, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ROMANDA SUE, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 88-3184
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 15, 1988.
Joseph J. Weigand, Jr. Weigand, Wei-gand & Meyer, Houma, La., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Robert N. Habans, Jr., Habans & Bologna, New Orleans, La., for Romanda Sue, Inc.
Steven W. Usdin, Wayne Lee, Stone, Pig-man, Walther, Wittman & Hutchinson, New Orleans, La., for Phillips Petroleum Co.
Before GEE, WILLIAMS and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appellant complains generally of various claimed errors by the trial court. We agree with the reasoning of its opinion, however; and its findings of fact are not shown to be clearly erroneous — a demonstration not attempted by appellant.
Drachenberg v. Canal Barge Co., Inc., 571 F.2d 912 (5th Cir.1978), does not support appellant's contention that a mooring cleat which was part of another's dock should be considered part of ROMANDA SUE, where these were connected by a line only. The marine arm in Drachenberg was firmly affixed to the vessel to such a degree as to have become an integral part of it, and was under common ownership with the vessel. Indeed, Drachenberg itself cites Davis v. W. Bruns & Co., 476 F.2d 246 (5th Cir.1973), holding that a connection by guy wires was insufficient for such purposes.
AFFIRMED.