Diamond Offshore Services Limited and Diamond Offshore Services Company v. Willie David Williams
510 S.W.3d 57
Tex. App.2015Background
- Williams sued Diamond Offshore for negligence and unseaworthiness under the Jones Act after injuring his back repairing rig elevators onboard Ocean Lexington.
- Trial court awarded Williams approximately $8.5 million in compensatory damages plus interest; Diamond Offshore appealed on evidentiary issues and damages sufficiency.
- Diamond Offshore sought to admit a post-incident surveillance video and evidence of 85% salary replacement; trial court excluded both, offsetting damages in judgment.
- Medical history includes two back surgeries (April 2008 microdiscectomy; February 2009 fusion) and chronic pain with foot drop; several experts offered competing causation and economic-loss views.
- Jury apportioned fault 60% Ocean Lexington, 30% Diamond Offshore, 10% Williams; verdict awarded various past and future damages; final judgment included a ten-percent Williams fault offset and a nearly $197,293 net-advance offset.
- Dissent would have admitted the surveillance video as substantive evidence under Rule 403; majority affirmed exclusion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of post-incident surveillance video | Video is probative; impeachment plus substantive evidence of damages. | Video unfairly prejudicial; not authentic or properly balanced under Rule 403. | Exclusion upheld; not abuse of discretion. |
| Exclusion of salary-advance payments as evidence | Payments show Diamond Offshore’s conduct and damages potential. | Payments are earnings, not a settlement; offset applied if verdict for Williams. | Not reversible error; offset applied; evidence exclusion not outcome-determinative. |
| Sufficiency of damages evidence for future harms | Award for future disfigurement, medical care, earning capacity, pain, impairment supported by evidence. | Awards are excessive or speculative; challenged certain categories. | Damages upheld as within jury’s discretion; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chiasson v. Zapata Gulf Marine Corp., 988 F.2d 513 (5th Cir. 1993) (surveillance video may be substantive evidence beyond impeachment)
- Baker v. Canadian National/Illinois Central Railroad, 536 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 2008) (surveillance video admissible when probative against testimony)
- James v. Carawan, 995 So.2d 69 (Miss. 2008) (state courts admit surveillance videos; balancing under Rule 403)
- Bay Area Healthcare Group, Ltd. v. McShane, 239 S.W.3d 231 (Tex. 2007) (recognizes admissibility decisions not purely prejudicial)
- TCA Bldg. Co. v. Northwest Resources Co., 922 S.W.2d 629 (Tex.App.-Waco 1996) (balancing test for evidentiary admissibility under Rule 403)