Miranda McCuller v. Nautical Ventures, L.L.
434 F. App'x 408
| 5th Cir. | 2011Background
- Benjamin McCuller, a longshoreman for Halliburton Energy Services, was injured on April 2, 2004 when a Jacob’s ladder on Nautical Ventures’ vessel collapsed during his descent.
- The ladder, deployed at Halliburton’s Fourchon, Louisiana terminal, was damaged weeks earlier; the district court found Nautical breached its turnover duty by deploying a defective ladder.
- The district court held Benjamin’s own negligence contributed 30% to the injuries, reducing damages accordingly, and awarded lost wages, pain and suffering, and medical expenses, but not household services or in vitro fertilization (IVF).
- McCullers appealed liability and damages; Nautical cross-appealed liability. The Fifth Circuit affirmed liability and 30% fault, affirmed no damages for household services and IVF, and remanded for further findings on future medical expenses.
- The court remanded to require more particular findings on future medical expenses; otherwise, damages for loss of household services and IVF were upheld.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Open-and-obvious defect under turnover duty | McCuller contends the ladder defect was not open and obvious. | Nautical argues the defect was open and obvious or discoverable. | Not clearly erroneous; defect not open/obvious to McCuller. |
| Duty of inspection by joint employers | Halliburton had a duty to inspect for damage. | No expansive duty on Halliburton beyond reasonable inspection. | Halliburton's duty not broadened; no reversal on this ground. |
| Comparative fault allocation | McCuller was less at fault than found. | Benjamin’s clipboard use contributed to the accident. | No clear error; 30% fault affirmed. |
| Damages for future medical expenses | Future medical expenses should be higher; must be detailed. | $100,000 award is supported by the record. | Remand for further findings on future medical expenses. |
| Damages for household services and IVF | Loss of household services and IVF costs should be covered. | No recovery or speculative for IVF; household services not proven. | Affirmed no damages for household services and IVF. |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. M/V ANGELA, 353 F.3d 376 (5th Cir. 2003) (turnover duty and open/obvious analysis)
- Scindia Steam Navigation Co. v. De Los Santos, 451 U.S. 156 (1981) (vessel turnover duty scope; burden on stevedore to avoid dangers)
- Howlett v. Birkdale Shipping Co., 512 U.S. 92 (1994) (turnover duty context; shipowner supervision limits)
- Polizzi v. M/V Zephyros II Monrovia, 860 F.2d 147 (5th Cir. 1988) (obvious hazards and reasonable inspection standard)
- Morris v. Compagnie Maritime Des Chargeurs Reunis, S.A., 832 F.2d 67 (5th Cir. 1987) (open/obvious defects and shipowner duty to discover)
- Pimental v. LTD Can. Pac. Bul, 965 F.2d 13 (5th Cir. 1992) (open-and-obvious doctrine in turnover context)
- Edmonds v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 443 U.S. 256 (1979) (longshoreman fault reduction standard under LHWCA)
- Verdin v. C&B Boat Co., 860 F.2d 150 (5th Cir. 1988) (allowable damages components under LHWCA)
- Neill v. Diamond M. Drilling Co., 426 F.2d 487 (5th Cir. 1970) (remand for damages findings under Rule 52(a))