Court Opinion

ID: 9463781
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 23:16:06.756756+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:38:16.995924
License: Public Domain

CLARK, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
While I concur in the affirmance of the directed verdict in favor of Jones & Laughlin Corporation, I respectfully dissent from the affirmance of the trial court’s refusal of the same relief to Texaco.
Of course the majority is correct in reciting that Boeing Co. v. Shipman, 411 F.2d 365 (5th Cir. 1969), is the benchmark that determines whether Aymond made a case sufficient to go to the jury. Moreover, I have no quarrel with the majority’s recitation of Aymond’s evidence against Texaco concerning its negligence. Yet even assuming that Texaco owed a duty to Aymond not to order the cable washed with salt water and that this duty was breached, Aymond has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that it was more probable than not, Townsend v. State, La., 322 So.2d 139, 141 (1975), that Texaco’s breach was the substantially contributing factor in causing Aymond’s injuries. Lombard v. Sewage & Water Board of New Orleans, La., 284 So.2d 905, 913 (1973); Laird v. Travelers Insurance Co., 263 La. 199, 267 So.2d 714, 717-18 (1972); see Stewart v. Zurich Insurance Co., La.App., 342 So.2d 1273 (1977).
The sole testimony as to causation was by the expert witness, Weaver. The portion of Weaver’s testimony that the majority quotes is at most an admission by Weaver. that it “would be probable, as much as possible” that salt water caused the corrosion of the cable. A further excerpt from the colloquy between Texaco’s counsel and Weaver is even more revealing:
Q. Isn’t it a fact, Mr. Weaver, that there are a lot of variable factors in this case over which you have no particular knowledge? For example, you have already mentioned the absence of the cable, your inability to examine it, the exact frequency to which this cable was exposed to water, the type of water and so forth. Now, Mr. Weaver, would it be fair to state that you cannot state with any reasonable degree of engineering or any other type of certainty as to what the particular cause of the failure was in this accident?
A. I think that is a reasonable statement.
Before Boeing can be applied, there must be some testimony that Texaco’s order to wash the steel cable with salt water was a substantially contributing cause to Aymond’s injury. However, the only evidence on this point (Weaver’s opinion evidence) adds up to nothing more than expert conjecture that it is probable that it was. On this record I would hold that Aymond put on no evidence to support the conclusion that it was more probable than not that washing the steel cable with salt water had a bearing on its breaking. Therefore, I am of the opinion that Texaco was entitled to a directed verdict and would reverse on this ground. I respectfully dissent.