UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-31416
WANDA ANN FONTENOT; ET AL
Plaintiffs
RYAN J. FONTENOT, JR;
Plaintiff - Appellee
and
PATTERSON SERVICES, INC., doing business as INTERNATIONAL HAMMERS
Intervenor Plaintiff - Appellee
VERSUS
PENNZOIL OIL CO.; ET AL
Defendants
and
COASTAL WIRE ROPE & SUPPLY, INC.
Intervenor Defendant - Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Western District of Louisiana
98-CV-932
December 11, 2002
Before JOLLY and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges, and LITTLE,* District Judge.
PER CURIAM:**
*
Senior U.S. District Judge, Western District of Louisiana,
sitting by designation.
**
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the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.
Coastal Wire Rope & Supply, Inc. (“Coastal”) appeals the
judgment by the district court in this product liability suit
brought under the admiralty jurisdiction of the federal courts.
Coastal is the remaining defendant in a suit arising from an
accident on an offshore oil rig in which it was alleged that wire
slings Coastal had manufactured failed, causing serious injury to
Ryan J. Fontenot. The district court, after a complex bench trial,
made its factual and legal conclusions, apportioning liability
among three defendants, but not Fontenot’s employer, with whom
Fontenot had settled in a so-called Mary Carter agreement. Coastal
alleges numerous errors of fact and law. After careful
consideration of the briefs and arguments made in this appeal, we
conclude that the district court committed no error and accordingly
affirm its judgment essentially for the reasons given in its
careful and comprehensive opinion.
I.
There is a “well-established standard of review applicable to
bench trials, examining questions of law de novo, and reviewing
findings of fact for clear error.” Dunbar Medical Systems, Inc. v.
Gammex Inc., 216 F.3d 441, 448 (5th Cir. 2000) (citing Gebreyesus
v. F.C. Schaffer & Assoc’s, Inc., 204 F.3d 639, 642 (5th Cir.
2000).
II.
After examining the evidence, if the reviewing court is left
with the “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
2
committed, clear error exists and it is our duty to correct this
mistake.” In re Luhr Bros., 157 F.3d 333, 338-339 (5th Cir. 1998);
United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395
(1948). The district court made two determinative factual
findings. It concluded that Coastal manufactured the slings, and
that the slings failed below the weight at which they could be
expected to fail. Coastal argues that these conclusions were
clearly erroneous, and that the district court abused its
discretion in admitting and crediting certain expert testimony. We
find that the testimony of Dr. Don Pellow on the matter of the
chemical analysis of the wire rope was properly admitted and that
there was no abuse of the district court’s very wide discretion
over matters of expert testimony. General Electric Co. v. Joiner,
522 U.S. 136, 142 (1997); Mathis v. Exxon, 302 F.3d 448, 459 (5th
Cir. 2002). Taken with the additional documentary evidence and
testimony, we are convinced that the district court’s finding that
Coastal manufactured the slings, and that they failed prematurely,
was not clear error.
The district court also correctly concluded that this case was
governed by federal admiralty law rather than state tort law. The
activities undertaken on the rig satisfied the two-part locality
and connection test set forth in Grubart v. Great Lakes Dredge &
Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527 (1995). The location prong was uncontested,
and we find that the connection prong is satisfied, because the
“general character of the activity giving rise to the incident
3
shows a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity”.
Id. at 539. This personal injury sustained by a worker on an oil
rig is sufficiently connected to traditional maritime activity to
support federal admiralty tort jurisdiction under Grubart. See
Coats v. Penrod Drilling Corp., 61 F.3d 1113 (5th Cir. 1995).
Applying federal admiralty law, the district court determined
that employee recovery is not to be diminished by the fault of the
employer. Edmonds v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 443 U.S.
256 (1979). The court found that the greatest percentage of fault,
60%, was with Coastal. Two of the remaining parties were each
assessed 20% of the fault. The court properly concluded that,
under Edmonds, reduction of Coastal’s fault by that of
International Hammer would be improper. The district court’s
factual and legal conclusions were correct.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, and based largely on the thorough
opinion of the district court, the judgment is
AFFIRMED.
4