Larry Naquin, Sr. v. Elevating Boats, L.L.C., 744 F.3d 927

Background

Plaintiff Larry Naquin was a vessel repair supervisor for Elevating Boats, LLC (EBI) at its Houma, LA shipyard; he spent ~70% of his time working aboard EBI lift-boats (repairs, crane operation, inspections) and ~30% in the fabrication shop or operating a land-based crane.
On Nov. 17, 2009, a weld on an LC-400 shipyard crane (designed/maintained by EBI) failed while Naquin was operating it; the crane collapsed, severely injuring Naquin and crushing a building that killed a co-worker (his cousin’s husband).
Naquin underwent surgeries and therapy but could not return to physical work; EBI offered sedentary work which he declined citing emotional distress.
Naquin sued under the Jones Act alleging employer negligence; a jury found (1) Naquin was a Jones Act seaman, (2) EBI negligent, and awarded damages for physical pain, mental suffering, and future lost wages.
On appeal, EBI challenged seaman status, jury instructions, sufficiency of negligence evidence, and admission of evidence about the co-worker’s death. The Fifth Circuit affirmed liability but vacated the damages award and remanded for a new trial on damages.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Seaman status under Jones Act (Chandris two‑prong test)	Naquin argued his duties contribute to vessel function and he had a substantial connection to an identifiable fleet (spent ~70% of time on vessels).	EBI argued Naquin was a land‑based ship‑repairman (LHWCA work), not connected to vessels in navigation sufficiently (near‑shore, rarely towed, seldom aboard moving vessels).	Court: Affirmed seaman status — Naquin satisfied contributing‑to‑vessel prong and had a substantial connection in duration (~70%) and nature (regular exposure to maritime perils).
Jury instruction on seaman test order/clarity	Naquin maintained instruction correctly conveyed Chandris factors.	EBI contended the court reversed/pruned the prongs and confused the jury by garbling the test.	Court: No reversible error; charge was consistent with Chandris and adequately explained duration and nature.
Sufficiency of negligence evidence	Naquin relied on circumstantial evidence (defective weld caused collapse; EBI designed/maintained crane) to prove EBI negligence.	EBI argued plaintiff effectively relied on res ipsa loquitur without pleading it and had no direct proof of why weld failed.	Court: Evidence (defective weld under EBI control, test block within capacity) was sufficient to support jury inference of negligence; circumstantial proof adequate.
Admissibility of evidence about co‑worker’s death and emotional damages	Naquin sought to recover emotional distress arising both from his own injury/fear and from witnessing/learning of the co‑worker’s death.	EBI moved to exclude references to the relative’s death as irrelevant and prejudicial to damages.	Court: Evidence of emotional harm attributable solely to another’s death is not compensable under the Jones Act (zone‑of‑danger rule per Gottshall). Because the jury relied on non‑compensable emotional harm, damages award vacated and remanded for new trial on damages.

Key Cases Cited

Becker v. Tidewater, Inc., 335 F.3d 376 (5th Cir. 2003) (discusses Chandris seaman test application and the 30% guideline)
Chandris v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 347 (1995) (established two‑prong seaman test: contribution to vessel function and substantial connection in duration and nature)
Southwest Marine, Inc. v. Gizoni, 502 U.S. 81 (1991) (Jones Act covers any qualified seaman regardless of potential LHWCA coverage)
Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Gottshall, 512 U.S. 532 (1994) (adopted zone‑of‑danger rule for emotional distress under FELA, applied to Jones Act)
In re Endeavor Marine Inc., 234 F.3d 287 (5th Cir. 2000) (found derrick barge crane operator was a seaman despite working on moored barge; nature/duration analysis)
Watz v. Zapata Off‑Shore Co., 431 F.2d 100 (5th Cir. 1970) (affirmed inference of negligence from defective weld under circumstantial evidence)
Stewart v. Dutra Constr. Co., 543 U.S. 481 (2005) (discusses maritime jurisdictional principles and exposure to maritime perils)