Opinion ID: 41759
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: running in opposite directions.

Text: Because there is no clear error under prong (1) or (2) of the clear error test,5 Elevating Hodges testified that he did not see ComBoats’ other challenges must be considered eaux after the fire erupted because he was rununder prong (3): If, although the evidence dis- ning in a different direction. Von Harper recussed above would be substantial if credible, counted that he ran with Hodges. This sugthe force and effect of the testimony, consid- gests that Von Harper also did not see Comeaux. Von Harper also stated that he could not see well because it was pitch dark, and that 4 Elevating Boats suggests that Comeaux’s he had to turn his head to watch where he was medical statements are not admissible because he going to get the fire extinguisher. This did not testify from personal knowledge. Elevating testimony, to the effect that Hodges and Von Boats points to no evidence that Comeaux did not Harper did not see a collision because they have any personal knowledge of a collision in were not looking in the direction of the colliwhich he was involved, other than his statement sion, does not contradict therefore Comeaux’s that at the time of the accident he did not realize he statement that the collision occurred. had collided with the drums until ten minutes after the collision, when John Walker told him. Al- Although John Walker testified that Com- though Comeaux stated that Walker had told him of the alleged collision ten minutes after it allegedly eaux did not run into any drums, he also inoccurred, it does not mean that Comeaux did not dicated that he fled the boat immediately after independently recall the collision later. Comeaux the eruption because he was scared, and he did not testify that he believed that the collision was about forty feet from the fire when he occurred based only on Walker’s comments. turned around. In light of Walker’s contradictory testimony, the district court committed no 5 As discussed, clear error exists if (1) the clear error in discounting the credibility of the findings are without substantial evidence to support Walker testimony and believing that of Comthem, (2) the court misapprehended the effect of the eaux. Therefore, the preponderance of credievidence, and (3) if, although there is evidence ble testimony does not contradict the evidence which if credible would be substantial, the force relied on by the district court. and effect of the testimony, considered as a whole, convinces the court that the findings are so against the preponderance of credible testimony that they IV. do no reflect or represent the truth and right of the Energy Partners argues that the district case. Moorhead, 828 F.2d at 283. court erred in awarding Elevating Boats 50% 9 indemnity despite the factual finding that Com- is that a district court or jury may find that a eaux’s injuries arose from Elevating Boats’ vessel owner is negligent in having a cluttered breach of the duty of seaworthiness. This deck, yet not so utterly negligent as to be claim misstates the court’s factual findings. deemed as having rendered the vessel unseaworthy or unfit for “its intended use.”7 Although it did find that Comeaux’s burns resulted from the breach of the warranty of As the Simeon court explained, although seaworthiness, the court found that some other the shipowner has an absolute duty to provide injuries, including Comeaux’s back pain, might a seaworthy vessel, the vessel need not be have arisen from the collision with the drums, “‘accident-free.’”8 The duty of seaworthiness which the court described as “unrelated to the is only a duty “to furnish a vessel and appurtebreach” of the warranty of seaworthiness. nances reasonably fit for their intended use. Further, the court required that Energy The standard is not perfection, but reasonable Partners indemnify Elevating Boats only for those latter injuries. Therefore, because the court did not award indemnity for claims based on the breach of the warranty of seaworthi- ness, it did not err as a matter of law. (...continued) Energy Partners’ actual discussion of this Contrary to Energy Partners’ claim, the district issue could be read to suggest that the colli- court never actually decided that the negligence sion with the drums arose from Elevating that caused the collision with the drums occurred from a breach of the warranty of seaworthiness. Boats’ breach of its warranty of seaworthiness, Rather, the court specifically noted that the not from some other type of unrelated collision with the drums arose from negligence negligence.6 The law of this circuit, however, “unrelated” to that breach. 7 Simeon v. T. Smith & Son, Inc., 852 F.2d 6 In its brief, Energy Partners argues that it 1421, 1433 (5th Cir. 1988) (stating that a reasonable jury can find negligence based on iron . . . presented evidence which the trial court ore scattered on deck and a knot in the mooring line found by a preponderance that Elevating Boats and “still conclude that the [vessel] was was negligent . . . . [T]he facts and evidence ‘reasonably fit’ for its intended use as a derrick presented by Energy Partners proved that the barge”). The “warranty of seaworthiness” covers fire extinguishers on the deck of the Mike Mar- all parts of the vessel and its operation, including tin Elevator were either inoperable or not the hull, machinery, appliances, gear and functioning correctly, and that Mr. Comeaux equipment, and other appurtenances. The duty of sustained a share of his injuries from colliding seaworthiness is implicated where cargo is with the drums . . . . improperly loaded or stowed, and a statutory or regulatory violation may amount to Further, the trial court correctly determined unseaworthiness per se. The warranty of that not only was Elevating Boats’ negligence seaworthiness extends to manning the vessel; an a breach of the duties it owed to Mr. Comeaux, incompetent or inadequate master or crew may but also, more importantly, it was a breach of render the vessel unseaworthy. its contractual warranty of seaworthiness 8 owed to Energy Partners. Id. (citing Mitchell v. Trawler Racer, Inc., (continued...) 362 U.S. 539 (1960)). 10 fitness . . . .”9 Not all forms of negligence can tered deck. render a vessel unseaworthy. In Brunner v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 779 F.2d 296, 298 The captain of the vessel testified he was (5th Cir. 1986), this court explained that “We aware that the deck became cluttered when do not have the right to second guess a jury Coil Tubing and EnergyPartners overcrowded that may decide a small oil spill on a deck it with equipment, but that he did not object does not necessarily make an 80,000 ton tank- because there were some walkways that perer unseaworthy even if the spill got there mitted workers to traverse the deck. He also negligently.”10 testified that he had the authority to order some of the equipment removed if he believed