Manderson v. Chet Morrison Contractors, Inc.
666 F.3d 373
| 5th Cir. | 2012Background
- Manderson, a licensed engineer, worked aboard CMC’s dive vessel M/V Jillian Morrison in the Gulf of Mexico starting 2006; he was hospitalized in Jan 2008 for ulcerative colitis, diabetes, and a liver condition and did not return to work.
- Manderson sued under the Jones Act and general maritime law, claiming negligence per se for safety-regulation violations and unseaworthiness due to CMC’s crew/manning and maintenance failures.
- The district court granted summary judgment on certain maintenance and cure claims, and later, after a bench trial, awarded maintenance and cure and attorney’s fees related to those claims but denied other Jones Act/general maritime claims.
- Manderson challenged the Jones Act and unseaworthiness denials on appeal; CMC challenged the cure amount and attorney’s-fees award, asserting the denial of cure was not arbitrary and capricious.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s findings for clear error on fact-heavy issues and ultimately affirmed in part, modified in part, vacated in part, and remanded for entry of judgment consistent with the opinion.
- The court addressed collateral-source considerations in cure, the appropriate measure for cure, and whether the maintenance-and-cure denial was arbitrary and capricious, affecting attorney’s-fees and costs decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jones Act/negligence per se and unseaworthiness denial | Manderson contends CMC violated safety statutes and COI; asserts unseaworthiness | CMC argues no statutory violation established and COI compliance; no unseaworthiness linkage | Not clearly erroneous; claims rejected on the merits |
| Collateral-source rule and cure amount | Rule should not reduce cure; insurer payments should not count against cure | Use actual amounts paid (insurance) for cure; not charged amounts | Cure amount limited to amounts actually incurred/paid by insurer; district court erred in using charged amounts |
| Maintenance and cure denial as arbitrary and capricious; attorney’s fees | Denial was arbitrary and capricious; entitled to attorney’s fees | Denial not egregiously faulty; no basis for fees | Attorney’s-fees award vacated; denial not proven arbitrarily culpable under Morales standard |
| Costs under Rule 54(d) | Prevailing party should receive costs; Rule 54(d) presumption | CMC prevailing overall; costs denial justified | No abuse of discretion; denial sustained while remanding for final judgment consistency |
Key Cases Cited
- Park v. Stockstill Boat Rentals, Inc., 492 F.3d 600 (5th Cir. 2007) (negligence per se under the Jones Act)
- Cenac Towing, Inc., 544 F.3d 296 (5th Cir. 2008) (review standards for negligent causation findings in admiralty cases)
- Jackson v. OMI Corp., 245 F.3d 525 (5th Cir. 2001) (unseaworthiness standards and causation)
- Mitchell v. Trawler Racer, Inc., 362 U.S. 539 (1960) (seaworthiness principles and fitness of vessel)
- Davis v. Odeco, Inc., 18 F.3d 1237 (5th Cir. 1994) (maintenance and cure damages; actual-incurred rule; collateral-source context)
- Jauch v. Nautical Servs., Inc., 470 F.3d 207 (5th Cir. 2006) (collateral-source rule; cure payable irrespective of fault)
- Morales v. Garijak, Inc., 829 F.2d 1355 (5th Cir. 1987) (arbitrary-and-capricious standard for attorney’s-fees in maintenance-and-cure cases)