NICHE OILFIELD SERVICES, LLC v. Carter
2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 937
Tex. App.2011Background
- Carter was injured March 13, 2006 while cleaning a dry bulk tank on the M/V PILOT TIDE in navigable waters.
- Southern Tank Specialists cleaned the vessel; Niche provided a Gap-Vac and its operator Dickens to assist.
- A tarp covering the manhole was sucked into the tank during rain, cutting Carter’s air and oxygen supply as the vacuum operated.
- Carter alleged Dickens left his post, preventing immediate shutdown of the Gap-Vac; evidence about Dickens’s location was disputed.
- Jury found negligence by Niche, Tidewater, and Southern Tank; apportioned 80% to Niche, 15% to Southern Tank, with total damages of $810,000.
- Trial court awarded Carter $769,500 against Niche after applying a maritime five-percent reduction related to Tidewater’s settlement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of Dickens’s absence evidence | Dickens left his post; testimony supports negligence. | Unreliable hearsay and lack of direct observation negate causation. | Evidence legally/sufficient to support the finding and apportionment. |
| Alternative negligence theories | Other theories support liability without Dickens’s absence. | Evidence does not establish other theories as basis for liability. | Sufficiency issues foreclosed; not essential to disturb verdict. |
| Cumulative-error due to hearsay | Hearsay evidence admitted without objection cumulatively supports causation. | Hearsay was improperly admitted and prejudicial. | Harmless error; does not warrant new trial. |
| Maritime vs Texas law for settlement credit | Texas law should apply settlement credit, not maritime law. | Maritime law credit controls under forum-state practice. | General maritime law applies; five-percent reduction upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (legal sufficiency standard; favorable-inference rule)
- Kerlin v. Arias, 274 S.W.3d 666 (Tex. 2008) (unobjected hearsay is probative in sufficiency review)
- In re E.A.K., 192 S.W.3d 133 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006) (hearsay considerations in evidentiary review)
- McDermott, Inc. v. AmClyde, 511 U.S. 202 (U.S. 1994) (maritime law liability and damages framework)
- Grubart, Jerome B. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527 (U.S. 1995) (two-prong test for admiralty jurisdiction: location and relatedness)
- Exec. Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, 409 U.S. 249 (U.S. 1972) (maritime nexus and activity connection standard)
- Coats v. Penrod Drilling Corp., 61 F.3d 1113 (5th Cir. 1995) (repair/maintenance on navigable waters as maritime activity)
- Sisson v. Ruby, 497 U.S. 358 (U.S. 1990) (examples of substantial relationship to maritime activity)
- Seven Seas Fish Mkt., Inc. v. Koch Gathering Sys., Inc., 36 S.W.3d 683 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2001) (admiralty jurisdiction standards in Texas context)