UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-30662
Summary Calendar
GREG E. CRAWFORD,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
FALCON DRILLING COMPANY, INCORPORATED,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
(95-CV-993)
April 15, 1999
Before POLITZ, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Falcon Drilling Company, Inc. appeals the judgment entered by the district
court in this Jones Act case. For the reasons assigned, we affirm.
In 1996 following a bench trial, the district court made findings of fact and
applied conclusions of law resulting in a judgment decreeing that Falcon was
negligent and responsible for the injuries sustained by Greg Crawford, and that
Crawford was not contributorily negligent. Judgment in favor of Crawford for
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
$563,190.91 was entered. On appeal,1 we affirmed as to the amount of
damages, but remanded the case in light of the intervening en banc decision in
Gautreaux v. Scurlock Marine, Inc.,2 which recast the standard of negligence in
Jones Act cases. In doing so, we noted that several of the district court’s factual
findings as to liability might be affected by the Gautreaux standard. On remand,
the district court addressed the facts in light of the teachings of Gautreaux and
again found that Falcon was negligent and responsible for Crawford’s damages
and that Crawford was not contributorily negligent.
On this appeal, we review the district court’s factual findings for clear
error.3 Finding ample evidence in the record to support the district court’s
findings, and that those findings are not clearly erroneous, the judgment
appealed is AFFIRMED.
1
Crawford v. Falcon Drilling Co., 131 F.3d 1120 (5th Cir. 1997).
2
107 F.3d 331 (5th Cir. 1997) (en banc).
3
Avondale Indus., Inc. v. International Marine Carriers, Inc., 15 F.3d 489 (5th Cir.
1994); Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a).
2