Chad Ledet v. Smith Marine Towing Corp.
455 F. App'x 417
5th Cir.2011Background
- Ledet was injured aboard the SMITH HUNTER while transferring a pendant tow gear from a Tideland No. 21 during a 2009 operation; the suit was under the Jones Act and maritime law.
- A joint safety analysis planned the method for disconnecting the pendant wire; Ledet proposed an alternate method using the suitcase wire, which Captain Martin rejected.
- The pendant wire detached during a wave, striking Ledet and throwing him into bulwarks; Relief Captain Delaune assisted Ledet and ensured transfer to the HARVEY INVADER.
- Post-accident medical treatment diagnosed compression fractures of T12 and L1 with ongoing pain; Ledet underwent multiple procedures and extensive pain management.
- The district court awarded Ledet approximately $1.895 million for past and future damages; Smith Marine appealed, challenging both contributorily negligence and the damages award, which the district court upheld on its findings.
- The panel affirmed, finding Ledet not contributorily negligent and the damages award not clearly erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contributory negligence | Ledet followed Captain Martin’s orders. | Ledet knowingly entered a pressure/danger zone. | Ledet not negligent; district court credibility findings supported. |
| Damages/remittitur for pain and suffering | Damages were reasonable and supported by evidence. | Damages were excessive and not properly justified by comparators. | District court's $1.3 million for pain and suffering affirmed; maximum recovery rule not applicable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Brasea, Inc., 497 F.2d 67 (5th Cir. 1974) (seaman may not be contributorily negligent for following orders)
- Mihalopoulos v. Westwind Africa Lines Ltd., 511 So. 2d 771 (La. Ct. App. 1987) (comparing pain-and-suffering awards; laminectomy injury)
- Carrier v. Nobel Insurance Co., 87 So. 2d 126 (La. Ct. App. 2002) (comparable damages; higher awards in non-maritime cases vary by facts)
- Moore v. M/V ANGELA, 353 F.3d 376 (5th Cir. 2003) (maximum recovery rule inapplicable in this maritime context)